24802 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

forests, Public lands––rights-of-way, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Water resources. 

■ Accordingly, 36 CFR part 251 is 

corrected to read as follows: 

PART 251—LAND USES 

Subpart B—Special Uses 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 251 

continues to read as follow: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1011; 16 U.S.C. 518, 

551, 678a; Pub. L. 76–867, 54 Stat. 1197. 

■ 2. In § 251.60, revise (a)(2)(i) to read 

as follows: 

§ 251.60 Termination, revocation, and 

suspension. 

(a) * * * 

(2) All other special uses—(i) 

Revocation or suspension. An 

authorized officer may revoke or 

suspend a special use authorization for 

all other special uses, except a permit or 

an easement issued pursuant to 

§ 251.53(e) or an easement issued under 

§ 251.53(l) of this subpart: 

(A) For noncompliance with 

applicable statutes, regulations, or the 

terms and conditions of the 

authorization; 

(B) For failure of the holder to 

exercise the rights or privileges granted; 

(C) With the consent of the holder; or 

(D) At the discretion of the authorized 

officer for specific and compelling 

reasons in the public interest. 

* * * * * 

Dated: April 28, 2010. 

Thomas L. Tidwell, 

Chief, Forest Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–10296 Filed 5–5–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 745 

[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0049; FRL–8823–7] 

RIN 2070–AJ55 

Lead; Amendment to the Opt-Out and 

Recordkeeping Provisions in the 

Renovation, Repair, and Painting 

Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing several 

revisions to the Lead Renovation, 

Repair, and Painting Program (RRP) rule 

that published in the Federal Register 

on April 22, 2008. The RRP rule 

established accreditation, training, 

certification, and recordkeeping 

requirements as well as work practice 

standards on persons performing 

renovations for compensation in most 

pre-1978 housing and child-occupied 

facilities. In this document, EPA is 

eliminating the ‘‘opt-out’’ provision that 

currently exempts a renovation firm 

from the training and work practice 

requirements of the rule where the firm 

obtains a certification from the owner of 

a residence he or she occupies that no 

child under age 6 or pregnant women 

resides in the home and the home is not 

a child-occupied facility. EPA is also 

requiring renovation firms to provide a 

copy of the records demonstrating 

compliance with the training and work 

practice requirements of the RRP rule to 

the owner and, if different, the occupant 

of the building being renovated or the 

operator of the child-occupied facility. 

In addition, the rule makes minor 

changes to the certification, 

accreditation and state authorization 

requirements. 

DATES: This final rule is effective July 6, 

2010. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under docket 

identification (ID) number EPA–HQ– 

OPPT–2005–0049. All documents in the 

docket are listed in the docket index 

available at http://www.regulations.gov. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available in the electronic docket at 

http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only 

available in hard copy, at the OPPT 

Docket. The OPPT Docket is located in 

the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) at Rm. 

3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room 

hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

legal holidays. The telephone number of 

the EPA/DC Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 

566–0280. Docket visitors are required 

to show photographic identification, 

pass through a metal detector, and sign 

the EPA visitor log. All visitor bags are 

processed through an X-ray machine 

and subject to search. Visitors will be 

provided an EPA/DC badge that must be 

visible at all times in the building and 

returned upon departure. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical information contact: Marc 

Edmonds, National Program Chemicals 

Division, Office of Pollution Prevention 

and Toxics, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone 

number: (202) 566–0758; e-mail address: 

edmonds.marc@epa.gov. 

For general information contact: The 

TSCA Hotline, ABVI–Goodwill, 422 

South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 

14620; telephone number: (202) 554– 

1404; e-mail address: TSCAHotline@epa.gov. 

Hearing- or speech-challenged 

individuals may access the numbers in 

this unit through TTY by calling the 

toll-free Federal Relay Service at 1–800– 

877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you operate a training 

program required to be accredited under 

40 CFR 745.225, if you are a firm who 

must be certified to conduct renovation 

activities in accordance with 40 CFR 

745.89, or if you are an individual who 

must be certified to conduct renovation 

activities in accordance with 40 CFR 

745.90. 

This final rule applies only in States, 

Territories, and Indian Tribal areas that 

do not have authorized programs 

pursuant to 40 CFR 745.324. For further 

information regarding the authorization 

status of States, Territories, and Indian 

Tribes, contact the National Lead 

Information Center (NLIC) at 1–800– 

424–LEAD [5323]. Potentially affected 

categories and entities may include, but 

are not limited to: 

• Building construction (NAICS code 

236), e.g., single-family housing 

construction, multi-family housing 

construction, residential remodelers. 

• Specialty trade contractors (NAICS 

code 238), e.g., plumbing, heating, and 

air-conditioning contractors, painting 

and wall covering contractors, electrical 

contractors, finish carpentry contractors, 

drywall and insulation contractors, 

siding contractors, tile and terrazzo 

contractors, glass and glazing 

contractors. 

• Real estate (NAICS code 531), e.g., 

lessors of residential buildings and 

dwellings, residential property 

managers. 

• Child day care services (NAICS 

code 624410). 

• Elementary and secondary schools 

(NAICS code 611110), e.g., elementary 

schools with kindergarten classrooms. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 24803 

• Other technical and trade schools 

(NAICS code 611519), e.g., training 

providers. 

• Engineering services (NAICS code 

541330) and building inspection 

services (NAICS code 541350), e.g., dust 

sampling technicians. 

• Lead abatement professionals 

(NAICS code 562910), e.g., firms and 

supervisors engaged in lead-based paint 

activities. 

This listing is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by this action. Other types of 

entities not listed in this unit could also 

be affected. The North American 

Industrial Classification System 

(NAICS) codes have been provided to 

assist you and others in determining 

whether this action might apply to 

certain entities. To determine whether 

you or your business may be affected by 

this action, you should carefully 

examine the applicability provisions in 

40 CFR 745.89, 40 CFR 745.225, and 40 

CFR 745.226. If you have any questions 

regarding the applicability of this action 

to a particular entity, consult the 

technical person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

II. Background 

A. Agency’s Authority for Taking This 

Action 

This final rule is being issued under 

the authority of the Toxic Substances 

Control Act (TSCA) sections 402(c)(3), 

404, 406, and 407 (15 U.S.C. 2682(c)(3), 

2684, 2686, and 2687). 

B. Introduction 

In the Federal Register issue of April 

22, 2008, under the authority of sections 

402(c)(3), 404, 406, and 407 of TSCA, 

EPA issued its final RRP rule (Ref. 1). 

The final RRP rule, codified in 40 CFR 

part 745, subparts E, L, and Q, addresses 

lead-based paint hazards created by 

renovation, repair, and painting 

activities that disturb painted surfaces 

in target housing and child-occupied 

facilities. 

Shortly after the RRP rule was 

published, several petitions were filed 

challenging the rule. These petitions 

were consolidated in the Circuit Court 

of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit. On August 24, 2009, EPA signed 

an agreement with the environmental 

and children’s health advocacy groups 

in settlement of their petitions. In this 

agreement EPA committed to propose 

several changes to the RRP rule, 

including the changes discussed in this 

document regarding the opt-out 

provision and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

The RRP rule establishes 

requirements for training renovators, 

other renovation workers, and dust 

sampling technicians; for certifying 

renovators, dust sampling technicians, 

and renovation firms; for accrediting 

providers of renovation and dust 

sampling technician training; for 

renovation work practices; and for 

recordkeeping. Interested States, 

Territories, and Indian Tribes may apply 

for and receive authorization to 

administer and enforce all of the 

elements of the new renovation 

requirements. More information on the 

RRP rule may be found in the Federal 

Register document announcing the RRP 

rule or on EPA’s website at http:// 

www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/ 

renovation.htm. 

Many provisions of the RRP rule were 

derived from the existing lead-based 

paint activities regulations at 40 CFR 

part 745, subpart L (Ref. 2). These 

existing regulations were promulgated 

in 1996 under TSCA section 402(a), 

which defines lead-based paint 

activities in target housing as 

inspections, risk assessments, and 

abatements. The 1996 regulations cover 

lead-based paint activities in target 

housing and child-occupied facilities, 

along with limited screening activities 

called lead hazard screens. These 

regulations established an accreditation 

program for training providers and a 

certification program for individuals 

and firms performing these activities. 

Training course accreditation and 

individual certification was made 

available in five disciplines: Inspector, 

risk assessor, project designer, 

abatement supervisor, and abatement 

worker. In addition, these lead-based 

paint activities regulations established 

work practice standards and 

recordkeeping requirements for leadbased paint activities in target housing 

and child-occupied facilities. 

The RRP rule created two new 

training disciplines in the field of leadbased paint: Renovator and dust 

sampling technician. Persons who 

successfully complete renovator training 

from an accredited training provider are 

certified renovators. Certified renovators 

are responsible for ensuring that 

renovations to which they are assigned 

are performed in compliance with the 

work practice requirements set out in 40 

CFR 745.85. Persons who successfully 

complete dust sampling technician 

training from an accredited training 

provider are certified dust sampling 

technicians. Certified dust sampling 

technicians may be called upon to 

collect dust samples after renovation 

activities have been completed. 

The RRP rule contains a number of 

work practice requirements that must be 

followed for every covered renovation 

in target housing and child-occupied 

facilities. These requirements pertain to 

warning signs and work area 

containment, the restriction or 

prohibition of certain practices (e.g., 

high heat gun, torch, power sanding, 

power planing), waste handling, 

cleaning, and post-renovation cleaning 

verification. The firm must ensure 

compliance with these work practices. 

Although the certified renovator is not 

required to be on-site at all times, while 

the renovation project is ongoing, a 

certified renovator must nonetheless 

regularly direct the work being 

performed by other workers to ensure 

that the work practices are being 

followed. 

C. Opt-Out Provision 

The RRP rule included a provision 

that exempts a renovation firm from the 

training and work practice requirements 

of the rule when the firm obtains a 

certification from the owner of a 

residence he or she occupies that no 

child under age 6 or pregnant women 

resides in the home and the home is not 

a child-occupied facility. Unless the 

target housing meets the definition of a 

child-occupied facility, if an owneroccupant signed a statement that no 

child under age 6 and no pregnant 

woman reside there and an 

acknowledgment that the renovation 

firm will not be required to use the leadsafe work practices contained in EPA’s 

RRP rule, the renovation activity is not 

subject to the training, certification, and 

work practice requirements of the rule. 

Conversely, if the owner-occupant does 

not sign the certification and 

acknowledg ment for any reason (even 

if no children under age 6 or no 

pregnant women reside there), the 

renovation is subject to the 

requirements of the RRP rule. 

Even though the Agency included the 

opt-out provision in the final RRP rule, 

EPA recognized that the opt-out 

presented concerns for exposure to 

children under age 6. Nonetheless, EPA 

explained that it believed it should 

focus the rule on scenarios with the 

greatest exposure to children under age 

6, that concerns for new homeowners 

would be mitigated to some extent by 

the requirements of the ‘‘Disclosure 

Rule’’, and that older children and 

adults did not ingest lead-dust at as high 

a rate as toddlers and therefore high 

dust lead levels present a much greater 

risk to a young child than they do for 

an older child or adult. After 

promulgation, the rule, and specifically 

the opt-out provision, was challenged. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
24804 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

As part of a settlement agreement, EPA 

agreed to propose removing the opt-out 

provision. 

On October 28, 2009, EPA proposed 

to remove the opt-out provision. For the 

reasons discussed in this Unit, the 

Agency has now concluded that it is 

important to require the RRP work 

practices and training and certification 

requirements in target housing even if 

there is no child under age 6 or pregnant 

woman residing there. By removing the 

opt-out provision, the rule will go 

farther toward protecting children under 

age 6 and pregnant women, as well as 

older children and adult occupants of 

target housing where no child under age 

6 or pregnant woman resides. Therefore, 

the opt-out provision will no longer be 

available to owner-occupants beginning 

on the effective date of this final rule. 

EPA believes the opt-out provision is 

not sufficiently protective for children 

under age 6 and pregnant women, the 

most vulnerable populations identified 

in the RRP rule. As pointed out by a 

number of commenters on the RRP rule, 

the opt-out provision does not protect 

families with young children who may 

purchase recently renovated target 

housing. Removal of the opt-out will 

result in fewer homes being purchased 

with lead hazards created by renovation, 

repair, and painting activities. Under 

the RRP rule, the opt-out provision was 

limited to owner-occupied target 

housing and did not extend to vacant 

rental housing because of the concern 

that future tenants could unknowingly 

move into a rental unit where dust-lead 

hazards created by the renovation are 

present. In the same way, dust-lead 

hazards created during renovations in 

an owner-occupied residence conducted 

prior to a sale will be present for the 

next occupants. It is common for home 

owners to hire contractors to perform 

activities that disturb paint before 

selling a house, thus increasing the 

likelihood of lead hazards being present 

for someone buying a home, which may 

include a family with a child under age 

6 or a pregnant woman. There are other 

benefits to removing the opt-out 

provision, including protection for 

family pets, as lead poisonings resulting 

from renovations have been 

documented in both cats and dogs (Refs. 

17 and 18). 

In the preamble to the RRP rule, EPA 

explained that it believed the Disclosure 

Rule, 40 CFR part 745, subpart F 

(required by section 1018 of Title X of 

the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard 

Reduction Act of 1992 (Pub. L. 102– 

550), would help to address these 

concerns. The Disclosure Rule requires 

sellers of target housing to disclose 

known lead-based paint or lead-based 

paint hazard information to purchasers 

and provide them with a copy of the 

lead hazard information pamphlet 

entitled Protect Your Family From Lead 

in Your Home (Ref. 14). EPA explained 

the receipt of this information could 

prompt the family to inquire about 

potential lead-based paint hazards in 

the home. In addition, EPA 

recommended that purchasers take 

advantage of their statutory opportunity 

to have a lead-based paint inspection or 

risk assessment done while in the 

process of purchasing target housing. 

In supporting the proposal to remove 

the opt-out provision, one commenter 

disagreed that the Disclosure Rule 

adequately addresses the risks to 

subsequent owners of target housing 

that undergo renovations under the optout provision. In particular, this 

commenter pointed out that there is 

nothing in the Disclosure Rule to alert 

homeowners to the fact that RRP work 

practice requirements were not followed 

before they purchased the home. 

Indeed, the Disclosure Rule only 

requires disclosure of known hazards. It 

would not require disclosure of 

renovation activities or that the owner 

opted out of the RRP rule requirements. 

The commenter further states that it is 

unreasonable to assume that a typical 

homeowner or someone renting a 

previously owner-occupied dwelling 

would know the detailed exemptions on 

the RRP rule. 

The Agency continues to believe that 

the Disclosure Rule provides valuable 

information to homeowners and that 

this information may help homeowners 

become aware of lead hazards. However, 

EPA’s study on the Characterization of 

Dust Lead Levels after Renovation, 

Repair, and Painting Activities (the 

‘‘Dust Study’’, Ref. 11), demonstrated 

that renovation, repair, and painting 

activities produce large quantities of 

lead dust that create dust-lead hazards. 

The study also showed that the RRP 

work practices are effective at 

minimizing exposure to dust hazards 

that could result from renovation 

activities. As the commenter pointed 

out, the Disclosure Rule will not, in 

many cases, provide the type of 

renovation specific lead hazard 

information or provide recipients 

information that can be said to reliably 

or effectively result in minimizing 

exposure to lead-based paint hazards 

created by renovation activities. Thus, 

there is little evidence to suggest that 

the provisions of the Disclosure Rule are 

effective or reliable at minimizing 

exposure to lead-based paint hazards 

created by renovation activities in target 

housing. In addition, even if the 

Disclosure Rule reliably disclosed 

relevant information relating to earlier 

renovation activities, EPA does not 

believe this would be an adequate 

substitute for the work practice 

standards, which EPA has a record basis 

to conclude actually result in 

elimination—rather than simply 

disclosure—of the hazards created by 

renovations. 

Perhaps in recognition of this 

shortcoming, one commenter suggested 

that EPA should revise the Disclosure 

Rule, as opposed to making changes to 

the RRP rule. That would not, however, 

satisfy EPA’s obligation under section 

402 to put into place standards that take 

into account reliability, effectiveness, 

and safety to address lead-based paint 

hazards created by renovation activities 

in target housing. Moreover, the 

Disclosure Rule was jointly promulgated 

by EPA and the Department of Housing 

and Urban Development. Thus, changes 

would involve a joint rulemaking effort 

and are not wholly within EPA’s 

control. Furthermore, changes to the 

Disclosure Rule would need to be 

analyzed in the context of the 

underlying statute—not just because it 

might be helpful in the context of 

actions taken by EPA under a different 

statutory provision. In short, while this 

is a suggestion that may be worth 

pursuing, it does not address the present 

issue; that of reliably and effectively 

minimizing exposure to lead-based 

paint hazards created by renovation 

activities. 

Furthermore, EPA is concerned about 

the effectiveness of disclosure with 

respect to populations with the highest 

risk of exposure to harmful lead levels. 

Children in minority populations and 

children whose families are poor have 

an increased risk of exposure to harmful 

lead levels (Ref. 3, at e376). Analysis of 

the National Health and Nutrition 

Examination Surveys (NHANES) data 

from 1988 through 2004 shows that the 

prevalence of blood lead levels equal to 

or exceeding 10 μg/dL in children aged 

1 to 5 years has decreased from 8.6% in 

1988–1991 to 1.4% in 1999–2004, 

which is an 84% decline (Ref. 3, at 

e377). However, the NHANES data from 

1999–2004 indicates that non-Hispanic 

black children aged 1 to 5 years had 

higher percentages of blood lead levels 

equal to or exceeding 10 μg/dL (3.4%) 

than white children in the same age 

group (1.2%) (Ref. 3). In addition, 

among children aged 1 to 5 years over 

the same period, the geometric mean 

blood lead level was significantly higher 

for non-Hispanic blacks (2.8 μg/dL), 

compared with Mexican Americans (1.9 

μg/dL) and non-Hispanic whites (1.7 μg/ 

dL) (Ref. 3, at e377). For children aged 

1 to 5 years from families with low 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 24805 

income, the geometric mean blood lead 

level was 2.4 μg/dL (Ref. 3, at e377). 

Further, the incidences of blood-lead 

levels greater than 10 μg/dL and greater 

than or equal to 5 μg/dL were higher for 

non-Hispanic blacks (14% and 3.4% 

respectively) than for Mexican 

Americans (4.7% and 1.2%, 

respectively) and non-Hispanic whites 

(4.4% and 1.2%, respectively) (Ref. 3, at 

e377). The ‘‘analysis indicates that 

residence in older housing, poverty, age, 

and being non-Hispanic black are still 

major risk factors for higher lead levels’’ 

(Ref. 3, at e376). EPA is concerned that 

disclosure may be ineffective with 

respect to these populations already at 

higher risk of having elevated blood 

lead levels because the effectiveness of 

disclosure depends on the recipient’s 

understanding the significance of the 

disclosure and having the means and 

ability to act upon the information. 

This also relates to practical issues 

that have implications for the RRP rule 

in general, and for high risk, lowincome, minority populations in 

particular. The opt-out is a relatively 

complicated overlay to the applicability 

provisions of the rule. EPA believes 

there are practical benefits to removing 

the opt-out and simplifying the 

applicability of the rule—both for 

renovators and homeowners. The optout provision complicates the outreach 

and education about lead hazards and 

makes the rule more complicated for 

renovators to apply and consumers to 

understand. Furthermore, it not only 

assumes literacy but also a working 

knowledge of what the rule would 

otherwise require and an ability to 

provide informed consent. Accordingly, 

EPA believes that populations that 

already have the highest risk factors for 

lead exposure may be 

disproportionately adversely affected by 

the complexity of a rule that contains 

the opt-out provision. More generally, 

EPA believes that the more uniform the 

application of the rule work practices in 

target housing is, the more effective and 

reliable they will be at minimizing 

exposure to lead-based paint hazards. 

Contractors who have a single set of 

work practices that are to be applied in 

most pre-1978 housing and childoccupied facilities will be more likely to 

apply them consistently and correctly. 

Renovations performed under the optout provision are also likely to result in 

exposures for vulnerable populations in 

other ways. Visiting children who do 

not spend enough time in the housing 

to render it a child-occupied facility 

may nevertheless be exposed to lead 

from playing in dust-lead hazards 

created by renovations. For example, 

children may spend time in the homes 

of grandparents, but those homes may 

be eligible for the opt-out provision of 

the RRP rule. A homeowner who signs 

an opt-out statement may not realize 

that she is pregnant. For example, ‘‘A 

Case Report of Lead Paint Poisoning 

during Renovation of a Victorian 

Farmhouse’’ describes four cases of 

childhood lead poisoning and two cases 

of adult lead toxicity resulting from a 

renovation. One of the adults was a 

woman who did not realize she was 

pregnant until after the exposure 

occurred. (Ref. 16) 

Eliminating the opt-out provision will 

also protect families with young 

children residing near or adjacent to 

homes undergoing renovations. Under 

the RRP rule, an owner occupant can 

take advantage of the opt-out provision 

even if a child under age 6 or a pregnant 

woman lives in an adjacent home. 

Renovations on the exterior of a 

residence can spread leaded dust and 

debris some distance from the 

renovation activity, which is why, for 

regulated renovations, EPA requires 

renovation firms to cover the ground 

with plastic sheeting or other 

impermeable material a distance of 10 

feet from the renovation and take extra 

precautions when in certain situations 

to ensure that dust and debris does not 

contaminate other buildings or other 

areas of the property or migrate to 

adjacent properties. One commenter 

cited a study that shows housing in 

urban areas, such as Chicago, tend to be 

only three to five meters apart, 

highlighting the likelihood of lead 

contamination of adjacent prosperities 

in urban neighborhoods. Similarly, 

another commenter stated that in urban 

communities, many if not most of the 

homes are side by side. There are 

approximately 2 million owneroccupied, single-family attached homes 

(e.g., townhomes, semi-detached or 

duplex homes) built before 1978. 

Renovations on the exteriors of these 

homes are likely to contaminate 

neighboring yards and porches resulting 

in exposure outside the house as well as 

inside because dust can be tracked into 

the home. Many more owner-occupied, 

single-family detached homes are 

located in close proximity to each other, 

and renovations performed under the 

opt-out provision present a similar risk 

for these homes. Another factor that 

EPA did not fully consider in 

promulgating the original RRP rule, but 

that weighs heavily against the opt-out 

provision, is that the risks posed by the 

opt-out with respect to exterior work 

will disproportionally affect children 

that are already at the highest risk for 

higher blood lead levels—low income, 

non-Hispanic black children living in 

older housing in urban areas, which is 

likely to be comprised of attached, or 

closely constructed detached, homes. 

While the RRP rule focused 

principally on protecting children under 

age 6, it is well known that older 

children and adults can also suffer 

adverse effects from lead exposure. 

Adults are susceptible to lead effects at 

lower blood lead levels than previously 

understood (e.g., Ref. 13, p. 8–25). 

Epidemiologic studies have consistently 

demonstrated associations between lead 

exposure and enhanced risk of 

deleterious cardiovascular outcomes, 

including increased blood pressure and 

incidence of hypertension. A metaanalysis of numerous studies estimates 

that a doubling of blood-lead level (e.g., 

from 5 to 10 μg/dL) is associated with 

∼1.0 mm Hg increase in systolic blood 

pressure and ∼0.6 mm Hg increase in 

diastolic pressure. The evidence for an 

association of lead with cardiovascular 

morbidity and mortality is limited but 

supportive. (Ref. 13, p E–10). As evident 

from the discussions in chapters 5, 6 

and 8 of EPA’s Air Quality Criteria 

Document for Lead (Ref. 13), 

‘‘neurotoxic effects in children and 

cardiovascular effects in adults are 

among those best substantiated as 

occurring at blood lead concentrations 

as low as 5 to 10 μg/dL (or possibly 

lower); and these categories are 

currently clearly of greatest public 

health concern’’ (Ref. 13, p. 8–60). With 

regard to blood lead levels in individual 

children associated with particular 

neurological effects, the Criteria 

Document states ‘‘Collectively, the 

prospective cohort and cross-sectional 

studies offer evidence that exposure to 

lead affects the intellectual attainment 

of preschool and school age children at 

blood lead levels <10 μg/dL (most 

clearly in the 5 to 10 μg/dL range, but, 

less definitively, possibly lower).’’ (Ref. 

13, p. 6–269). Epidemiological studies 

have consistently demonstrated 

associations between lead exposure and 

enhanced risk of deleterious 

cardiovascular outcomes, including 

increased blood pressure and incidence 

of hypertension. As one commenter 

pointed out, the half-life of lead in bone 

is approximately 20 years. Thus, women 

of child-bearing age exposed to lead will 

retain higher levels of lead in their 

bodies throughout their child-bearing 

years. When pregnancy occurs, lead can 

be transferred to the fetus causing an 

array of adverse effects. EPA now 

believes the opt-out provision does not 

sufficiently account for the importance 

of the health effects of lead exposure to 

adults and children age 6 and older by 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
24806 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

allowing renovations to be performed 

without following the RRP rule 

requirements in housing that qualified 

for the opt-out. In supporting the final 

RRP rule, EPA stated that older children 

and adults do not ingest dust at the 

same high rate that a toddler does. This 

is corroborated by a 2007 meta-analysis 

of studies of children’s hand-to-mouth 

behavior. (Ref. 4). However, as this 

analysis indicates, this does not mean 

that hand-to-mouth behavior is not a 

potential concern for older children. 

According to the meta-analysis, the 

average indoor hand-to-mouth behavior 

ranged from 6.7 to 28.0 contacts/hour, 

with the lowest value corresponding to 

the 6 to < 11 year olds and the highest 

value corresponding to the 3 to < 6 

month olds. Average outdoor hand-tomouth frequency ranged from 2.9 to 

14.5 contacts/hour, with the lowest 

value corresponding to the 6 to <11 year 

olds and the highest value 

corresponding to the 6 to < 12 month 

olds. Although toddlers have a higher 

incidence of hand-to-mouth behavior 

than 6 to < 11 year olds, the latter group 

still averages more than 6 contacts/hour. 

Further elevated blood lead levels do 

occur in children older than 6 and 

adults (Ref. 15). The Dust Study shows 

that when the RRP requirements are not 

followed, renovation activities result in 

dust lead levels that can be orders of 

magnitude above the hazard standard 

and that can be orders of magnitude 

higher than if the RRP requirements are 

followed. EPA believes the information 

from this meta-analysis provides 

corroborating support for EPA’s concern 

for children 6 and older and its decision 

to eliminate the opt-out provision. 

The Agency believes that it should 

only allow provisions such as the optout for situations where the information 

available to EPA indicates that the RRP 

rule work practices are not necessary to 

minimize exposure of occupants to lead 

paint hazards. Because lead paint dust 

exposure can cause adverse health 

effects for populations other than just 

children under age 6 and renovations 

can result in lead dust levels many 

times higher than the hazard standard, 

EPA believes the work practices should 

be followed in target housing without 

regard to the age of the occupants. 

Moreover, EPA believes that 

implementing the regulations without 

the opt-out provision promotes, to a 

greater extent, the statutory directive to 

promulgate regulations covering 

renovation activities in target housing. 

Among other things, TSCA section 

402(c)(3), directs EPA to promulgate 

regulations that apply to renovation 

activities that create lead-based paint 

hazards in target housing. Section 

401(17) of TSCA defines target housing 

as ‘‘any housing constructed prior to 

1978, except housing for the elderly or 

persons with disabilities (unless any 

child who is less than 6 years of age 

resides or is expected to reside in such 

housing for the elderly or persons with 

disabilities) or any 0-bedroom 

dwelling.’’ Pursuant to section 403 of 

TSCA, EPA has identified dust-lead 

hazards in target housing and childoccupied facilities as surface dust that 

contains a mass-per-area concentration 

of lead equal to or exceeding 40 μg/ft 2

on floors or 250 μg/ft 2 on windowsills. 

In the RRP rule, EPA found that 

renovation, repair, and painting 

activities that disturb lead-based paint 

create lead-based paint hazards. Thus, 

renovations in target housing that create 

lead-based paint hazards should be 

covered unless there is a record basis to 

conclude that coverage is unnecessary. 

Shortly after promulgating the RRP 

rule, the RRP rule, and specifically the 

opt-out provision, was challenged. EPA 

decided to settle the lawsuit. As part of 

the settlement, EPA agreed to issue a 

proposed rule removing the opt-out. In 

turn, as part of this rulemaking, EPA 

requested information or data that 

would shed any light on the reliability, 

effectiveness, or safety of the opt-out or 

any variation thereof in relation to 

EPA’s lead hazard standards. EPA did 

not receive any information in response 

to its request. 

EPA’s Dust Study demonstrated and 

EPA found that renovation, repair, and 

painting activities produce lead dust 

above the regulatory hazard standards. 

In fact many renovation activities create 

large quantities of lead dust. The Dust 

Study shows that renovation activities 

result in lead levels many times greater 

than the hazard standard when the RRP 

rule containment and cleanup 

procedures are not followed. It also 

demonstrated that work practices other 

than those restricted or prohibited by 

the RRP rule can leave behind lead dust 

well above the hazard standards when 

the RRP rule requirements are not 

followed. The Dust Study also showed 

that alternative practices (broom 

cleaning, not using containment) were 

not effective or safe in relation to EPA’s 

lead hazard standards. Under the optout, contractors performing renovations 

would have no obligation to minimize 

or clean up any dust-lead hazards 

created by the renovation. Indeed, 

contractors would not be prevented 

from using practices that EPA has 

determined create hazards that cannot 

be adequately contained or cleaned up 

even when following the RRP rule 

requirements. The Agency also took 

these factors into consideration in its 

decision to remove the opt-out 

provision in this final rule. 

In development of the proposed rule, 

EPA considered and requested comment 

on certain alternative approaches or 

work practice requirements for owneroccupied target housing that is not a 

child-occupied facility and where no 

children younger than 6 or pregnant 

women reside. EPA also requested 

comment on possible alternate 

approaches that would meet EPA’s 

statutory obligation to apply work 

practice standards in target housing that 

take into account reliability, 

effectiveness, and safety. 

One alternative for which EPA 

requested comment would have 

required the RRP work practices only 

for exterior renovations. Under this 

option, unless the target housing meets 

the definition of a child-occupied 

facility, if an owner-occupant signed a 

statement that no child under 6 and no 

pregnant woman reside there and an 

acknowledgment that the renovation 

firm will only be required to use the 

lead-safe work practices contained in 

EPA’s RRP rule when renovating 

exteriors then the renovation firm 

would only be required to follow the 

RRP work practices when doing exterior 

renovations, but not when doing interior 

renovations. This option would have 

addressed exposures to lead dust from 

exterior renovations for people living in 

neighboring homes, particularly 

attached homes or homes in close 

physical proximity. Individuals residing 

in homes in close physical proximity 

could be exposed during the entire 

renovation and post-renovation phase, 

and their exposure would not 

necessarily be considered by an owneroccupant in choosing not to require 

lead-safe work practices. However, this 

option did not address lead hazards 

created during renovations of the 

interiors of home which could lead to 

lead exposure to occupants, and EPA 

received no comments mitigating this 

concern or supporting the 

protectiveness of this option. 

EPA requested comment on an 

alternative option under which the only 

work practices applicable to housing 

that is not a child-occupied facility and 

where no children or pregnant women 

reside would be the restriction or 

prohibition on certain work practice 

found at 40 CFR 745.85(a)(3). These 

include: 

1. Open-flame burning or torching of 

lead-based paint is prohibited. 

2. The use of machines that remove 

lead-based paint through high speed 

operation such as sanding, grinding, 

power planing, needle gun, abrasive 

blasting, or sandblasting, is prohibited 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 24807 

unless such machines are used with 

HEPA exhaust control. 

3. Operating a heat gun on lead-based 

paint is permitted only at temperatures 

below 1,100 degrees Fahrenheit. 

All the other work practice 

requirements in 40 CFR 745.85 would 

not be required in target housing that is 

not a child-occupied facility and where 

no children under age 6 or pregnant 

women reside. This option would have 

prohibited or restricted the highest dust 

generating practices but would not have 

required the other practices under 40 

CFR 745.85. While the prohibited work 

practices create high amounts of lead 

dust, the other work practices also 

create lead dust above the hazard 

standard. The Dust Study shows that 

common work practices result in lead 

levels many times greater than the 

hazard standard when the RRP rule 

containment and cleanup procedures 

are not followed. 

EPA requested comment on a third 

option under which a subset of target 

housing would not be subject to the RRP 

work practices but instead would have 

been subject to dust wipe testing to be 

performed after the renovation. Under 

this option, unless the target housing 

meets the definition of a child-occupied 

facility, if an owner-occupant signed a 

statement that no child under 6 and no 

pregnant woman reside there and an 

acknowledgment that the renovation 

activity is only subject to dust wipe 

testing after the renovation and 

providing the results to the owneroccupant, then the renovation firm 

would not be required to conduct the 

training, certification, and work practice 

requirements of the rule. The testing 

results would become part of the record 

for that house that must be disclosed 

under the Disclosure Rule (40 CFR part 

745, subpart F) required by section 1018 

of Title X of the Residential Lead-Based 

Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 

(Pub. L. 102–550). This option would 

provide information that could protect 

potential buyers of a home where 

renovation was completed prior to the 

sale, because they would be notified of 

the results of the dust wipe tests before 

purchase and could take appropriate 

action (e.g., thorough cleaning and 

retesting of the home, or selecting a 

different home) if the lead results were 

at a level that raised concerns for them. 

While this alternative may provide 

helpful information to home owners and 

occupants, as discussed above it would 

not address lead-based paint hazards 

created by renovations because it does 

not require any of the work practices 

required by the RRP rule. 

After considering these alternatives as 

well as keeping the opt-out provision, 

the Agency has decided to eliminate the 

Opt-out provision and not to adopt any 

of the alternatives. One concern with 

the opt-out provision or the alternatives 

is that they do not adequately address 

the risks of lead-based paint hazards to 

children older than five years old or 

adults. The opt-out and each of these 

alternatives can also result in exposures 

to children under the age of 6 and 

pregnant women to lead-based paint 

hazards. In the same way as for the optout provision itself, EPA also has 

concerns that populations that are 

already at a higher risk for elevated 

blood lead levels may be 

disproportionately and adversely 

affected by the alternatives. 

Another concern with the opt-out as 

well as the alternatives is that they can 

create confusion among both contractors 

and consumers. Several commenters 

stated that the opt-out provision or the 

alternatives could cause confusion that 

could potentially result in noncompliance by renovation firms. EPA 

agrees and believes that simplifying the 

applicability of the work practices will 

enhance the effectiveness and reliability 

of the rule. 

Based on the data available to EPA 

(e.g., the Dust Study), the Agency 

cannot now conclude that the opt-out 

nor that the alternative approaches are 

safe, reliable or effective because none 

of these would sufficiently minimize 

exposure to lead-based paint hazards. In 

sum, when the RRP work practices are 

not used, residents and visitors are 

exposed to the lead hazards created by 

the renovation, and therefore these 

approaches would not protect older 

children, women of childbearing age, or 

other adults currently residing in the 

home and can result in exposure to 

children under the age of 6 and 

pregnant women to lead-based paint 

hazards. Again, although EPA 

specifically requested information or 

data that would shed any light on the 

reliability, effectiveness, or safety of 

these options in relation to EPA’s lead 

hazard standards, the Agency did not 

receive any. The Agency took these 

factors into consideration in deciding 

not to adopt these alternatives. 

D. Recordkeeping and Reporting 

EPA’s stated purposes in 

promulgating the recordkeeping 

requirements were two-fold. ‘‘The first is 

to allow EPA or an authorized State to 

review a renovation firm’s compliance 

with the substantive requirements of the 

regulation through reviewing the 

records maintained for all of the 

renovation jobs the firm has done. The 

second is to remind a renovation firm 

what it must do to comply. EPA 

envisioned that renovation firms would 

use the recordkeeping requirements and 

checklist as an aid to make sure that 

they have done everything that they are 

required to do for a particular 

renovation’’ (Ref. 1, p. 21745). Several 

commenters on the RRP rule suggested 

that the recordkeeping requirements 

could also be used to provide valuable 

information about the renovation to the 

owners and occupants of buildings 

being renovated. EPA responded to 

these comments by stating that some of 

the information identified by these 

commenters was included in the 

‘‘Renovate Right’’ pamphlet and that the 

pamphlet was the best way to get that 

information to the owners and 

occupants. With respect to the other 

items identified by these commenters, 

EPA stated its belief that the renovation 

firms were already providing much of 

this information (Ref. 1, p. 21718). 

As part of EPA’s preparations to 

administer the RRP program, EPA has 

been developing an education and 

outreach campaign aimed at consumers. 

In promulgating the RRP rule, EPA 

recognized the importance of education 

and outreach to consumers, to teach 

them about lead-safe work practices and 

to encourage them to hire certified 

renovation firms (Ref. 1, p. 21702). 

EPA’s work on the education and 

outreach campaign has continued to 

highlight the importance of an informed 

public to the success of the RRP 

program at minimizing exposures to 

lead-based paint hazards that may be 

created by renovations. As a result, EPA 

has determined that copies of the 

records required to be maintained by 

renovation firms to document 

compliance with the work practice 

requirements, if provided to the owners 

and occupants of the renovated 

buildings, would serve to reinforce the 

information provided by the ‘‘Renovate 

Right’’ pamphlet on the potential 

hazards of renovations and on the RRP 

rule requirements. While the ‘‘Renovate 

Right’’ pamphlet provides valuable 

information about the requirements of 

the RRP rule, the records that a firm 

would give to owners and occupants 

would provide useful information 

regarding rule compliance that is not 

found in the pamphlet. In covering the 

significant training and work practice 

provisions of the RRP rule, these records 

would enable building owners and 

occupants to better understand what the 

renovation firm did to comply with the 

RRP rule and how the RRP rule’s 

provisions affected their specific 

renovation. Several commenters stated 

that educating homeowners would help 

them monitor compliance by the 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
24808 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

renovation firm. One commenter stated 

that the checklist would help the public 

understand the RRP rule and that a 

better informed public would choose to 

have renovation performed by 

professional remodelers who would 

provide safe and quality work. Other 

commenters believe that the distribution 

of the checklist is needed to address a 

lack of accountability of renovation 

firms to owners and occupants. EPA 

agrees that educating the owners and 

occupants in this way is likely to 

improve their ability to assist the EPA 

in monitoring compliance with the RRP 

rule and contribute to the effectiveness 

and reliability of the rule. 

After considering public comments, 

EPA decided to finalize the rule as 

proposed. This final rule requires that, 

when the final invoice for the 

renovation is delivered, or within 30 

days of the completion of the 

renovation, whichever is earlier, the 

renovation firm provide information 

demonstrating compliance with the 

training and work practice requirements 

of the RRP rule to the owner of the 

building being renovated and, if 

different, to the occupants of the 

renovated housing or the operator of the 

child-occupied facility. For renovations 

in common areas of target housing, the 

renovation firm must provide the 

occupants of the affected housing units 

instructions on how to review or obtain 

this information from the renovation 

firm at no charge to the occupant. These 

instructions must be included in the 

notice provided to each affected unit 

under 40 CFR 745.84(b)(2)(i) or on the 

signs posted in the common areas under 

40 CFR 745.84(b)(2)(ii). EPA is 

finalizing similar requirements for 

renovations in child-occupied facilities. 

Under this final rule, the renovation 

firm is required to provide interested 

parents or guardians of children using 

the child-occupied facility instructions 

on how to review or obtain a copy of 

these records at no cost to the parents 

or guardians. This could be 

accomplished by mailing or hand 

delivering these instructions, or by 

including them on the signs posted 

under 40 CFR 745.84(c)(2)(ii). 

Under this new requirement, 

renovation firms must provide training 

and work practice information to 

owners and occupants. The information 

should be provided in a short, easily 

read checklist or other form. EPA’s 

‘‘Sample Renovation Recordkeeping 

Checklist’’ may be used for this purpose, 

but firms may develop their own forms 

or checklists so long as they include all 

of the required information. The specific 

information that is required to be 

provided are the training and work 

practice compliance information 

required to be maintained by 40 CFR 

745.86(b)(7), as well as identifying 

information on the manufacturer and 

model of the test kits used, if any, a 

description of the components that were 

tested including their locations, and the 

test kit results. The checklist or form 

must include documentation that a 

certified renovator was assigned to the 

project, that the certified renovator 

provided on-the-job training for workers 

used on the project, that the certified 

renovator performed or directed workers 

who performed the tasks required by the 

RRP rule, and that the certified 

renovator performed the post-renovation 

cleaning verification. This 

documentation must include a 

certification by the certified renovator 

that the work practices were followed, 

with narration as applicable. However, 

EPA is not requiring that the renovation 

firm automatically provide a copy of the 

certified renovator’s training certificate, 

which must be maintained in the firm’s 

records pursuant to 40 CFR 745.86(b)(7), 

as an attachment to the checklist or 

other form. 

One commenter believes that the text 

of the form should be included in the 

regulations. EPA disagrees with this 

comment. The Agency wants to give 

renovation firms flexibility with regard 

to the format of the information given to 

owners and occupants. Renovation 

firms must list the information specified 

in the regulations and they can use 

EPA’s sample checklist if they choose. 

However, the final rule allows firms to 

use their own version of the checklist as 

long as it includes the required 

information. 

With respect to the option for dust 

clearance in lieu of cleaning verification 

under 40 CFR 745.85(c), the RRP rule 

requires the renovation firm to provide 

the associated results from dust wipe 

sampling to the person who contracted 

for the renovation. This requirement 

was promulgated in response to public 

comments on the applicability of the 

Lead Disclosure Rule, 40 CFR part 745, 

subpart F, to dust lead testing reports. 

These commenters stated that a 

requirement for the information to be 

provided to the owner of the property 

was necessary in order to make sure that 

the information would be available to be 

disclosed in the future (Ref. 1, p. 21718). 

However, in agreeing with these 

commenters and acknowledging the 

importance of having the dust sampling 

reports available to disclose to future 

purchasers and tenants, EPA neglected 

to consider the importance of making 

dust sampling information available to 

the current occupants of renovated 

rental target housing or child-occupied 

facilities. While 40 CFR 745.107 would 

require renovation-related dust 

sampling reports to be disclosed to 

target housing tenants at the next lease 

renewal, this may be months or years 

after the renovation was completed. In 

addition, the Lead Disclosure Rule does 

not apply to child-occupied facilities in 

public or commercial buildings, so 

those tenants may never receive this 

information. 

Therefore, this final rule requires that, 

if dust clearance is performed in lieu of 

cleaning verification, the renovation 

firm provide a copy of the dust wipe 

sampling report(s) to the owner of the 

building that was renovated as well as 

to the occupants, if different. With 

respect to renovations in common areas 

of target housing or in child-occupied 

facilities, EPA is also requiring that 

these records be made available to the 

tenants of the affected housing units or 

the parents and guardians of children 

under age 6 using the child-occupied 

facilities. Dust sampling reports may be 

made available to these groups in the 

same way as training and work practice 

records, by providing information on 

how to review or obtain copies in 

individual notifications or on posted 

signs. 

E. Effective Date 

During the development of the 

proposed rule, EPA considered a delay 

in the effective date of this final rule. 

EPA estimated that eliminating the optout provision could increase the number 

of renovators that need to be certified by 

50%. A delayed effective date would 

have allowed more time for additional 

renovators to get their certification. The 

Agency asked for comment on whether 

a 6-month or 1-year delay in the 

effective date is appropriate. In 

addition, EPA asked for comment on 

whether a delay in the effective date of 

this rule would be confusing for the 

regulated community or the certified 

personnel. 

Comments regarding the delay were 

mixed. Several commenters opposing 

the delay believe that EPA has enough 

training capacity to train additional 

renovators that may need certification 

because of this rule. Several 

commenters pointed out that delaying 

the effective date would result in more 

people being exposed to lead hazards 

that could be avoided if the RRP rule 

work practices were in place for 

renovations previously eligible for the 

opt-out. Another commenter believes 

that phasing in the work practice 

requirements by delaying the effective 

date of this rule would lead to confusion 

for the public and renovation firms. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 24809 

Some commenters were in favor of 

delaying the effective date. Several 

commenters said that many contractors 

were not aware of the requirements and 

there is not sufficient time for them to 

understand and comply with the 

regulations without a delayed effective 

date. Other commenters stated that EPA 

should delay the effective date to allow 

enough time for additional renovators to 

take the training. One commenter 

asserts that EPA should delay the 

effective date rather than create a 

shortfall of renovators. 

Another factor EPA considered with 

regard to extending the effective date is 

whether firms specialize in housing that 

is eligible for the opt-out. The cost 

estimates for the rule assume that 

renovation firms are somewhat 

specialized in terms of whether they 

work in housing where the RRP rule is 

applicable. However, there may be 

many instances where firms working in 

opt-out housing will already have 

become certified, and their staff been 

trained, because they also work in 

regulated facilities ineligible for the optout provision. If firms are less 

specialized than the analysis assumed, 

there may be little to no incremental 

training and certification costs due to 

the proposed rule. Furthermore, to the 

extent that some eligible homeowners 

would have declined to opt out, the 

work practice costs for removing the 

opt-out provision will be less than 

estimated. EPA requested comment in 

the proposal on the degree to which the 

same firms and renovators are likely to 

work both in opt-out housing and in 

child-occupied facilities and target 

housing that are ineligible for the optout provision. 

Several commenters stated that they 

do not believe firms specialize in 

housing based on occupancy. One 

commenter reviewed advertisements 

and the market place, and did not find 

renovators that work only in owneroccupied housing without children or 

pregnant women. According to the 

commenter, because firms do not appear 

to specialize in this manner, the 

additional costs of eliminating the optout are only the costs associated with 

the materials and time for a particular 

job as contractors would be required to 

get certification regardless of whether 

the opt-out provision is removed. EPA 

agrees with these comments. While the 

Agency has not done analysis to 

determine how many firms may 

specialize based on occupancy, EPA 

believes it is likely that most firms will 

not specialize in owner-occupied 

housing without children or pregnant 

women. Commenters did not provide 

information indicating that firms 

specialize in this way. If that is the case 

then many of the approximately 110,000 

firms and renovators estimated to seek 

certification because of this rule would 

need certification regardless of whether 

the opt-out provision is removed. If the 

majority of the 110,000 firms and 

renovators have already been required 

to get certification then there is less of 

an argument to extend the effective date 

of this rule because many fewer firms 

and renovators will need certification 

between publication of the rule and the 

effective date. 

Accordingly, the Agency decided not 

to delay the effective date of this final 

rule. As such, the rule will become 

effective 60 days after publication in the 

Federal Register. EPA believes that it is 

important to eliminate the opt-out 

exemption without delay in order to 

avoid further lead exposures in housing 

previously eligible for the opt-out. 

Further, based on the number of training 

courses accredited to date, the Agency 

believes that there is sufficient training 

capacity available to train any 

additional renovators that would need 

to get certification because of this rule. 

F. State Authorization 

As part of the authorization process, 

States and Indian Tribes must 

demonstrate to EPA that they meet the 

requirements of the RRP rule. A State or 

Indian Tribe would have to indicate that 

it meets the requirements of the 

renovation program in its application 

for approval or the first report it submits 

under 40 CFR 745.324(h). The Agency 

proposed to give States and Indian 

Tribes 1 year to demonstrate that their 

programs include any new requirements 

the EPA may promulgate, such as the 

requirements in this final rule. EPA 

received two comments regarding this 

requirement. One comment, from the 

Iowa Department of Public Health, 

explained that Iowa’s legislature only 

meets once a year for 4 months. 

Depending on when the EPA publishes 

amendments to the RRP, it could be 

very difficult for states in similar 

situations to meet this requirement. The 

commenter requested that EPA give 

States and Indian Tribes two years 

instead of one to demonstrate 

compliance. EPA believes that the 

concern raised by the commenter has 

merit, and not just for Iowa. Therefore, 

the Agency decided to allow States and 

Indian Tribes up to two years to 

demonstrate to EPA that they meet the 

requirements of the RRP rule in its 

application for approval or the first 

report it submits under 40 CFR 

745.324(h). 

G. Renovator Certification Requirements 

EPA was made aware by stakeholders 

that some renovators want to take the 

training course closer to April 2010 in 

order to maximize their 5-year 

certification which is not required until 

the RRP rule becomes effective on 

April 22, 2010. Under the RRP rule, the 

5-year certification begins when the 

renovator completes the training. The 

Agency is concerned that if enough 

renovators wait until April 2010 to take 

the training it may cause training 

courses to fill up resulting in a lack of 

available courses near the effective date. 

In order to give renovators incentive to 

take the course well in advance of the 

April 2010 effective date, the Agency 

considered a change to the requirements 

that would allow renovator 

certifications issued on or before the 

effective date of the RRP rule to last 

until July 1, 2015. The Agency 

requested comment on whether it 

should extend the certification for 

renovators that get their certification by 

April 22, 2010. 

EPA received several comments in 

favor of extending the renovator 

certification to July 1, 2015. Several 

commenters believe this would give 

renovators incentive to take the training 

early. One commenter supported the 

extension so those who took the training 

in advance of the April 22, 2010 

implementation date would not be 

penalized. Another commenter stated 

that an extension of the certification 

would prevent logistical problems like 

waiting lists for trainings during the 

final days before the effective date. 

The Agency decided to finalize an 

extension of the 5-year certification for 

renovators who take the training before 

April 22, 2010. EPA agrees that 

renovators who take the training early 

should not be penalized and therefore 

will extend those certifications until 

July 1, 2015. 

H. Principle Instructor Requirements 

As discussed in the preamble to the 

proposed rule, EPA considered 

modifying the requirements for training 

providers. Under the original 

requirements for the accreditation of 

training providers, Principle Instructors 

were required to take a 16-hour leadpaint course taught by EPA or an 

authorized State, Tribe, or Territory. 

EPA became aware that 16-hour courses 

are not available in every state, making 

it difficult for some instructors to get the 

required training. To address this 

problem, EPA considered reducing the 

hourly requirement to 8 hours. EPA 

received several comments on the 

Principal Instructor requirement, mostly 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
24810 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

in support of reducing the hourly 

requirement to 8 hours. One commenter 

stated that there is no significant benefit 

to requiring 16 hours instead of 8 hours 

and that the 8-hour requirement will fit 

more closely to available training 

courses. Similarly, another commenter 

stated that the 16-hour training shares 

little content with what the Principal 

Instructors are going to teach in the 

renovator course. The commenter also 

explained that there is no 16-hour lead 

training course in Mississippi which led 

to difficulties with a local organization’s 

ability to offer the renovator course. One 

commenter opposed to reducing the 

hourly requirement stated that 8 hours 

of lead training is not sufficient for an 

instructor to know enough about lead 

paint, lead hazards and federal 

regulations. Another commenter stated 

that there is enough training capacity 

negating the need to reduce the hourly 

requirement. 

EPA agrees that the 8-hour renovator 

course, instead of a longer abatement 

course, is more closely related to what 

Principal Instructors must know in 

order to teach the renovator training. In 

addition to the training requirement, 

Principal Instructors must meet 

education and work experience 

requirements in order to teach leadbased paint training courses. The 

Agency believes that taking this course 

would be sufficient training for future 

instructors of the renovator course and 

therefore has reduced the requirement 

from 16 to 8 hours. By reducing the 

required hours, future instructors can 

take the 8-hour renovator or dust 

sampling technician trainings instead of 

a 16-hour or longer abatement course. 

III. References 

As indicated under ADDRESSES, a 

docket has been established for this 

rulemaking under docket ID number 

EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0049. The 

following is a listing of the documents 

that are specifically referenced in this 

document. The docket includes these 

documents and other information 

considered by EPA, including 

documents that are referenced within 

the documents that are included in the 

docket, even if the referenced document 

is not physically located in the docket. 

For assistance in locating these other 

documents, please consult the technical 

contact listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

1. EPA. Lead; Renovation, Repair, and 

Painting Program; Final Rule. Federal 

Register (73 FR 21692, April 22, 2008) 

(FRL–8355–7). Available on-line at: 

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr. 

2. EPA. Lead; Requirements for Lead-Based 

Paint Activities in Target Housing and 

Child-Occupied Facilities; Final Rule. 

Federal Register (61 FR 45778, August 

29, 1996) (FRL–5389–9). Available online at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr. 

3. Jones, Robert L., David M. Homa, Pamela 

A. Meyer, Debra J. Brody, Kathleen L. 

Caldwell, James L. Pirkle, and Mary Jean 

Brown. ‘‘Trends in Blood Lead Levels 

and Blood Lead Testing Among U.S. 

Children Aged 1 to 5 Years, 1988–2004.’’ 

Pediatrics: Official Journal of the 

American Academy of Pediatrics. Vol. 

123, No. 3, pp. e376–385, March 2009. 

4. Xue J, Zartarian V, Moya J, Freeman N, 

Beamer P, Black K, Tulve N, Shalat S: A 

meta-analysis of children’s hand-tomouth frequency data for estimating 

nondietary ingestion exposure. Risk 

Anal. 2007 Apr.; 27(2): 411–20. 

5. EPA. Office of Pollution Prevention and 

Toxics (OPPT). Economic Analysis for 

the TSCA Lead Renovation, Repair, and 

Painting Program Opt-out and 

Recordkeeping Final Rule for Target 

Housing and Child-Occupied Facilities. 

April 2010. 

6. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of 

Economic Analysis. Table 1.1.9. Implicit 

Price Deflators for Gross Domestic 

Product. August 17, 2009. 

7. EPA. Opt-out and Recordkeeping Final 

Rule ICR Addendum for the rulemaking 

entitled Lead: Elimination of the Opt-Out 

Provision and Other Amendments to the 

Renovation, Repair, and Painting 

Program; Proposed Rule. April 2010. 

8. EPA. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

for the Elimination of the Opt-Out 

Provision and Other Amendments to the 

Lead Renovation, Repair, and Painting 

Program; Final Rule. April 2010. 

9. EPA. Report of the Small Business 

Advocacy Review Panel on the Leadbased Paint Certification and Training; 

Renovation and Remodeling 

Requirements. March 3, 2000. 

10. EPA. Lead; Renovation, Repair, and 

Painting Program; Proposed Rule. 

Federal Register (71 FR 1588, January 

10, 2006) (FRL–7755–5). Available online at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr. 

11. EPA. Characterization of Dust Lead 

Levels after Renovation, Repair, and 

Painting Activities. November 13, 2007. 

12. EPA. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Statement; Lead: Elimination of the OptOut Provision and Other Amendments to 

the Renovation, Repair, and Painting 

Program; Final Rule. April 2010. 

13. EPA. Air Quality Criteria for Lead. 

October 2006. 

14. EPA, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission (CPSC), U.S. Department of 

Housing and Urban Development (HUD). 

Protect Your Family From Lead in Your 

Home (EPA 747–K–99–001, June 2003). 

15. CDC. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly 

Report. vol 54, no. 20, pp 513–516, May 

27, 2005. 

16. Marino, Phyllis E. et al. ‘‘A Case Report 

of Lead Paint Poisoning during 

Renovation of a Victorian Farmhouse.’’ 

American Journal of Public Health, 80 

(10) pp. 1183–1185. October 1990. 

17. Kowalczyk DF. ‘‘Lead poisoning in dogs 

at the University of Pennsylvania 

Veterinary Hospital.’’ Journal of 

American Veterinary Medical 

Association. 1976 Mar 1;168(5):428–32. 

18. Knight TE, Kumar MS. ‘‘Lead toxicosis in 

cats—a review.’’ Journal of Feline 

Medicine and Surgery. 2003 Oct;5 (5): 

249–55. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

EPA has prepared an analysis of the 

potential costs and benefits associated 

with this rulemaking. This analysis is 

contained in the Economic Analysis for 

the TSCA Lead Renovation, Repair, and 

Painting Program Opt-out and 

Recordkeeping Final Rule for Target 

Housing and Child-Occupied Facilities 

(Economic Analysis, Ref. 5), which is 

available in the docket for this action 

and is briefly summarized here, and in 

more detail later in this Unit. 

Category Description 

Benefits .............. $866 million—$3,061 million annualized (3% discount rate). 

$920 million—$3,258 million annualized (7% discount rate). 

Due to avoided IQ loss in children under age 6 and cardiovascular effects in adults. EPA does not have sufficient information 

to fully quantify benefits due to avoided health effects to individuals not present in target housing and child-occupied facilities subject to this rule or benefits due to avoided health effects other than IQ loss and cardiovascular effects. 

Costs ................. $295 million annualized (3% discount rate). 

$320 million annualized (7% discount rate). 

A. Executive Order 12866 

Under Executive Order 12866, 

entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review’’ (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), 

it has been determined that this rule is 

a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

section 3(f)(1) of the Executive Order 

because EPA estimates that it is likely 

to have an annual effect on the economy 

of $100 million or more. Accordingly, 

this action was submitted to the Office 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 24811 

of Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review under Executive Order 12866 

and any changes made based on OMB 

recommendations have been 

documented in the public docket for 

this rulemaking as required by section 

6(a)(3)(E) of the Executive Order. 

The following is a summary of the 

Economic Analysis (Ref. 5), which is 

available in the docket for this action. 

1. Number of facilities and 

renovations. This rule applies to 78 

million target housing units and childoccupied facilities in pre-1978 facilities. 

There are approximately 40 million 

target housing units potentially affected 

by the removal of the opt-out provision 

(i.e., owner occupied housing units 

where no child under age 6 or pregnant 

woman resides and that do not meet the 

definition of a child-occupied facility). 

There are an additional 38 million 

facilities potentially affected by the 

requirement that renovators provide 

owners and occupants with copies of 

the records required to be maintained by 

the renovator to document compliance 

with the training and work practice 

requirements. Approximately 100,000 of 

these facilities are child-occupied 

facilities located in public or 

commercial buildings, and the 

remainder are located in target housing 

(either in rental housing, owneroccupied housing where a child under 

age 6 or pregnant woman resides, or 

owner-occupied housing that meets the 

definition of a child-occupied facility). 

The removal of the opt-out provision 

will affect approximately 7.2 million 

renovation events per year in the 40 

million housing units previously 

eligible to use the opt-out provision. In 

the first year, there will be an estimated 

5.4 million renovation, repair, and 

painting events in these housing units 

where the rule will cause lead-safe work 

practices to be used. (In the remaining 

1.8 million renovation events, test kits 

for determining whether a surface 

contains lead-based paint will indicate 

that lead-based paint is not present.) 

EPA expects test kits that more 

accurately determine whether a painted 

surface qualifies as lead-based paint will 

become available in late 2010. Once the 

improved test kits are available, the 

number of renovation, repair, and 

painting events using lead-safe work 

practices due to the rule in housing 

previously eligible for the opt-out 

provision is expected to drop to 3.0 

million events per year. 

The requirement for renovators to 

provide owners and occupants with 

records demonstrating compliance with 

the training and work practice 

requirements will affect all of the 7.2 

million renovation events per year in 

housing units previously eligible for the 

opt-out provision. This new 

recordkeeping requirement will also 

affect an additional 11.4 million 

renovation events per year in the 38 

million facilities ineligible for the optout provision. 

EPA’s estimates are based on the 

assumption that owners of housing 

eligible for the opt-out provision would 

always choose to exercise that 

provision. To the extent that some 

eligible homeowners would decline to 

opt out, the number of renovation 

events affected by the removal of the 

opt-out would be lower than EPA has 

estimated, as would the costs of this 

action and the estimated number of 

people protected by this action, since 

they would choose to be protected by 

the requirements of the RRP rule. 

2. Options evaluated. EPA considered 

a variety of options for addressing the 

risks created by renovation, repair, and 

painting activities disturbing lead-based 

paint in housing previously eligible for 

the opt-out provision. The Economic 

Analysis analyzed several options, 

including different options for the 

effective date of the final rule when 

published; an option phasing out the 

opt-out provision depending on when 

the facility was built (pre-1960 or pre1978); and different options for the work 

practices (such as containment, 

cleaning, and cleaning verification) 

required in housing previously eligible 

for the opt-out provision. 

All options evaluated in the Economic 

Analysis would also require renovation 

firms to provide owners and occupants 

of the buildings with a copy of the 

records demonstrating compliance with 

the training and work practice 

requirements of the RRP rule. This 

additional recordkeeping requirement 

would apply to renovation, repair, and 

painting activities in all 78 million 

target housing units and child-occupied 

facilities. 

3. Benefits. The benefits of the rule 

result from the prevention of adverse 

health effects attributable to lead 

exposure from renovations in pre-1978 

buildings. These health effects include 

impaired cognitive function in children 

and several illnesses in children and 

adults, such as increased adverse 

cardiovascular outcomes (including 

increased blood pressure, increased 

incidence of hypertension, 

cardiovascular morbidity, and mortality) 

and decreased kidney function. 

Removing the opt-out provision will 

protect children under the age of 6 who 

visit a friend, relative, or caregiver’s 

house where a renovation would have 

been performed under the opt-out 

provision; children who move into such 

housing when their family purchases it 

after such a renovation would have been 

performed; and children who live in a 

property adjacent to housing where 

renovation would have been performed 

under the opt-out provision. Removing 

the opt-out provision will also protect 

individuals age 6 and older who live in 

houses that would have been renovated 

under the opt-out provision; who move 

into such housing; and who live in 

adjacent properties. 

EPA has estimated some of the 

benefits of the rule by performing 

calculations based on estimates of the 

number of individuals in each of these 

situations and the average benefit per 

individual in similar situations from 

previous RRP rule analyses with some 

simple adjustments. The resulting 

calculations provide a sense of the 

magnitude of benefits from this action 

but should not be interpreted as strict 

upper or lower bound estimates of total 

benefits. Based on two scenarios for 

each of the situations described in the 

previous paragraph, annualized benefits 

for the rule may range from 

approximately $870 million to $3.2 

billion assuming a discount rate of 3%, 

and $920 million to $3.3 billion 

assuming a discount rate of 7%. Within 

these scenarios, 10% of these benefits 

are attributable to avoided losses in 

expected earnings due to IQ drop in 

children under 6, and 90% to avoided 

medical costs (or other proxies for 

willingness to pay) for hypertension, 

coronary heart disease, stroke, and the 

resulting incidence of deaths in older 

individuals. For children under 6, the 

largest proportion of these benefits 

derive from moving into recently 

renovated housing; for older 

individuals, the largest proportion 

derives from on-going residence in 

houses that would have been renovated 

under the opt-out provision. 

EPA did not estimate benefits for 

those who live near a house renovated 

under the opt-out provision unless in a 

contiguous attached home; those who 

spend time in a friend’s or relative’s 

house renovated under the opt-out 

provision; and for health effects other 

than IQ loss in children under 6 and 

blood pressure effects in older 

individuals. 

To the extent that some eligible 

homeowners would have declined to 

opt out, the benefits of this action will 

be lower than estimated, since exposed 

persons will already be protected by the 

requirements of the RRP program. 

4. Costs. Removing the opt-out 

provision will require firms performing 

renovation, repair, and painting work 

for compensation in housing previously 

eligible for the opt-out provision to 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
24812 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

follow the training, certification, and 

work practice requirements of the RRP 

rule. This may result in additional costs 

for these firms. Furthermore, the 

additional recordkeeping requirements 

in this rule will increase costs of 

renovations in all target housing and 

child-occupied facilities. Costs may be 

incurred by contractors that work in 

these buildings, landlords that use their 

own staff to work in buildings they lease 

out; and child-occupied facilities that 

use their own staff to work in buildings 

they occupy. 

The rule is estimated to cost 

approximately $500 million in the first 

year. The cost is estimated to drop to 

approximately $300 million per year 

starting with the second year, when 

improved test kits for detecting the 

presence of lead-based paint are 

assumed to become available. Over $200 

million per year of the cost in 

subsequent years is due to the work 

practice requirements in housing 

previously covered by the opt-out 

provision. Training for renovators and 

workers and certification for firms 

working in housing previously covered 

by the opt-out provision is estimated to 

add approximately $50 million per year 

to the cost. Requiring renovators to 

provide owners and occupants with 

copies of the recordkeeping required to 

document compliance with the RRP rule 

training and work practice requirements 

costs approximately $30 million per 

year, with about two thirds of this 

incurred in housing that was previously 

eligible for the opt-out provision. 

Note that the costs of this rule as 

estimated in the Economic Analysis are 

expressed in 2005 dollars. To express 

values in terms of current dollars, the 

Implicit Price Deflator for Gross 

Domestic Product as determined by the 

Bureau of Economic Analysis can be 

consulted for an indication of how 

nominal prices for goods and services 

produced in the economy have changed 

over time. From 2005 to the second 

quarter of 2009, the implicit price 

deflator increased from 100 to 109.753, 

a difference of approximately 10% (Ref. 

6). 

The cost estimates for training and 

certification assume that renovation 

firms are somewhat specialized in terms 

of whether they work in facilities where 

the RRP rule is applicable. However, 

there may be many instances where 

firms working in opt-out housing will 

already have become certified, and their 

staff been trained, because they also 

work in regulated facilities ineligible for 

the opt-out provision. If firms are less 

specialized than the analysis assumed, 

there may be little to no incremental 

training and certification costs due to 

the rule. Furthermore, to the extent that 

some eligible homeowners would have 

declined to opt out, the work practice 

costs for removing the opt-out provision 

will be less than estimated. 

The options EPA analyzed with a 

phase in or a delayed effective date for 

removing the opt-out provision have a 

lower cost in the first 2 years but have 

identical costs to the final rule 

beginning in the third year. Options 

with different work practice 

requirements for the housing previously 

eligible for the opt-out provision would 

cost 1% to 17% less than the final rule. 

This difference would all be due to 

lower work practice costs, as the 

training, certification, and 

recordkeeping costs would be the same 

for these options as for this rule. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collection 

requirements contained in this rule have 

been submitted for approval to the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. EPA 

has prepared an Information Collection 

Request (ICR) document to amend an 

existing approved ICR. The ICR 

document, referred to as the Opt-out 

and Recordkeeping Final Rule ICR 

Addendum and identified under EPA 

ICR No. 1715.12 and OMB Control 

Number 2070–0155, has been placed in 

the docket for this rule (Ref. 7). The 

information collection requirements are 

not enforceable until OMB approves 

them. 

Burden under the PRA means the 

total time, effort, or financial resources 

expended by persons to generate, 

maintain, retain, disclose, or provide 

information to or for a Federal agency. 

This includes the time needed to review 

instructions; develop, acquire, install, 

and utilize technology and systems for 

the purposes of collecting, validating, 

and verifying information, processing 

and maintaining information, and 

disclosing and providing information; 

adjust the existing ways to comply with 

any previously applicable instructions 

and requirements; train personnel to be 

able to respond to a collection of 

information; search data sources; 

complete and review the collection of 

information; and transmit or otherwise 

disclose the information. 

The information collection activities 

contained in this rule are designed to 

assist the Agency in meeting the core 

objectives of TSCA section 402. EPA has 

carefully tailored the recordkeeping 

requirements so they will permit the 

Agency to achieve statutory objectives 

without imposing an undue burden on 

those firms that choose to be involved 

in renovation, repair, and painting 

activities. 

The information collection 

requirements under this rule may affect 

training providers as well as firms that 

perform renovation, repair, or painting 

for compensation. Removing the opt-out 

provision may cause additional 

renovators to become trained and firms 

to become certified, and there are 

paperwork requirements for both of 

these activities. Removing the opt-out 

provision will also create paperwork 

due to the requirement to maintain 

records documenting compliance with 

the training and work practice 

requirements. This rule also requires 

renovation firms to provide owners and 

occupants with these records. Although 

firms have the option of choosing to 

engage in the covered activities, once a 

firm chooses to do so, the information 

collection activities become mandatory 

for that firm. 

The ICR document provides a detailed 

presentation of the estimated paperwork 

burden and costs resulting from this 

rule. The burden to training providers 

and firms engaged in renovation, repair, 

and painting activities is summarized in 

this unit. 

Because this analysis assumes that 

renovation firms are somewhat 

specialized in terms of whether they 

work in facilities where the RRP rule 

requirements are applicable, removing 

the opt-out provision is estimated to 

result in additional renovators becoming 

trained and additional renovation firms 

becoming certified. Training additional 

renovators will increase the paperwork 

burden for training providers, since they 

must submit records to EPA (or an 

authorizing State, Tribe, or Territory) 

pertaining to each student attending a 

training course. Approximately 170 

training providers are estimated to incur 

an average burden of about 40 hours 

each for additional notifications, 

resulting in an increase in training 

provider burden averaging 7,000 hours 

per year as a result of the removal of the 

opt-out provision. 

Removing the opt-out provision is 

estimated to result in up to 110,000 

additional firms becoming certified to 

engage in renovation, repair, or painting 

activities. The average certification 

burden is estimated to be 3.5 hours per 

firm in the year a firm is initially 

certified, and 0.5 hours in years that it 

is re-certified (which occurs every 5 

years). Firms must keep records of the 

work they perform; this recordkeeping 

is estimated to average approximately 5 

hours per year per firm. And under this 

rule, firms must also provide a copy of 

the records demonstrating compliance 

with the training and work practice 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 24813 

requirements of the RRP rule to the 

owners and occupants of buildings 

being renovated. This additional 

recordkeeping requirement is estimated 

to average approximately 3.3 hours per 

year per firm. The total annual burden 

for these 110,000 firms is estimated to 

average 1,072,000 hours, of which 

362,000 hours is due to the 

recordkeeping requirement to provide 

owners and occupants with 

documentation of the training and work 

practices used. 

To the extent that firms working in 

housing eligible for the opt-out 

provision will already have incurred the 

training and certification burdens 

because they also work in regulated 

facilities ineligible for the opt-out 

provision, the training and certification 

burden for this action will be lower than 

estimated. 

The requirement that firms provide 

owners and occupants with a copy of 

the records demonstrating compliance 

with the training and work practice 

requirements of the RRP rule also 

applies to firms working in buildings 

that were not eligible for the opt-out 

provision. Under an assumption that 

firms work in either buildings that are 

eligible for the opt-out provision or 

buildings that are ineligible (but not in 

both types of buildings), EPA estimated 

that 211,000 firms work in buildings 

that are not eligible for the opt-out 

provision. EPA estimated that these 

211,000 firms will incur an average 

annual burden of approximately 2.7 

hours per firm due to the new 

recordkeeping requirements, resulting 

in a total burden of 568,000 hours per 

year for these firms. To the extent that 

firms work in both types of buildings, 

the number of firms and the total 

burden in this category would be higher 

than estimated. But this would be offset 

by a corresponding decrease in the 

110,000 firms and 362,000 burden hours 

estimated for the firms that were 

assumed to work only in buildings 

previously eligible for the opt-out 

provision. 

Total respondent burden for training 

providers and certified firms from 

removing the opt-out provision and 

requiring additional recordkeeping is 

estimated to average approximately 

1,647,000 hours per year during the 3- 

year period covered by the ICR. 

The rule may also result in additional 

government costs to administer the 

program (to process the additional 

training provider notifications and to 

administer and enforce the program for 

firms working in housing previously 

eligible for the opt-out provision). 

States, Tribes, and Territories are 

allowed, but are under no obligation, to 

apply for and receive authorization to 

administer these requirements. EPA will 

directly administer programs for States, 

Tribes, and Territories that do not 

become authorized. Because the number 

of States, Tribes, and Territories that 

will become authorized is not known, 

administrative costs are estimated 

assuming that EPA will administer the 

program everywhere. To the extent that 

other government entities become 

authorized, EPA’s administrative costs 

will be lower. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for EPA’s regulations codified 

in chapter I of title 40 of the CFR, after 

appearing in the preamble of the final 

rule, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are 

displayed either by publication in the 

Federal Register or by other appropriate 

means, such as on the related collection 

instrument or form, if applicable. When 

the ICR is approved by OMB, the 

Agency will publish a technical 

amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in the 

Federal Register to display the OMB 

control number for the approved 

information collection requirements 

contained in the final rule. 

To comment on the Agency’s need for 

this information, the accuracy of the 

provided burden estimates, and any 

suggested methods for minimizing 

respondent burden, EPA has established 

a docket for this rule, which includes 

this ICR, under docket ID number EPA– 

HQ–OPPT–2005–0049. Submit any 

comments related to the ICR to EPA and 

OMB. See ADDRESSES for where to 

submit comments to EPA. Send 

comments to OMB at the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget, 725 

17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503, 

Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Since 

OMB is required to make a decision 

concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 

days after May 6, 2010, a comment to 

OMB is best assured of having its full 

effect if OMB receives it by June 7, 2010. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of this rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined in accordance with 

section 601 of RFA as: 

1. A small business as defined by the 

Small Business Administration’s (SBA) 

regulations at 13 CFR 121.201. 

2. A small governmental jurisdiction 

that is a government of a city, county, 

town, school district, or special district 

with a population of less than 50,000. 

3. A small organization that is any 

not-for-profit enterprise which is 

independently owned and operated and 

is not dominant in its field. 

As required by section 604 of RFA, 

EPA has prepared a final regulatory 

flexibility analysis (FRFA) for this rule. 

The FRFA is available for review in the 

docket and is summarized in this unit 

(Ref. 8). 

1. Reasons why action by the Agency 

is being taken. After further 

consideration of the opt-out provision, 

the Agency believes it is in the best 

interest of the public to remove the 

provision. EPA believes that the opt-out 

provision is not sufficiently protective 

for children under age 6 and pregnant 

women, because it does not provide 

protection from improperly performed 

renovations for visiting children and 

pregnant women; for children and 

pregnant women who move into a 

newly purchased house that was 

recently renovated under the opt-out 

provision; and for children and 

pregnant women who live adjacent to a 

home where the exterior is being 

renovated under the opt-out provision. 

In addition, while the RRP rule focused 

mainly on protecting young children 

and pregnant women from lead hazards, 

exposure can result in adverse health 

effects for older children and adults as 

well. Removing the opt-out provision 

will protect older children and adult 

occupants of target housing where no 

child under age 6 or pregnant woman 

resides, as well as residents of adjacent 

properties. Finally, EPA believes that 

implementing the regulations without 

the opt-out provision promotes, to a 

greater extent, the statutory directive to 

promulgate regulations covering 

renovation activities in target housing. 

EPA has determined that providing 

owners and occupants of renovated 

buildings with copies of the records 

documenting the renovation firm’s 

compliance with the RRP rule’s training 

and work practice requirements will 

serve to reinforce information on both 

the potential hazards of renovations and 

on the RRP rule’s requirements. It will 

also enable building owners and 

occupants to better understand what the 

renovation firm did to comply with the 

RRP rule and how the rule’s provisions 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
24814 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

affected their specific renovation. 

Educating the owners and occupants in 

this way is likely to improve their 

ability to assist the EPA in monitoring 

compliance with the RRP rule. These 

improvements in education and 

monitoring will improve compliance 

with the RRP rule, which will 

ultimately protect children and adults 

from exposure to lead hazards due to 

renovation activities. 

2. Legal basis and objectives for this 

rule. TSCA section 402(c)(2) directs EPA 

to study the extent to which persons 

engaged in renovation, repair, and 

painting activities are exposed to lead or 

create lead-based paint hazards 

regularly or occasionally. After 

concluding this study, TSCA section 

402(c)(3) further directs EPA to revise 

its lead-based paint activities 

regulations under TSCA section 402(a) 

to apply to renovation or remodeling 

activities that create lead-based paint 

hazards. Because EPA’s study found 

that activities commonly performed 

during renovation and remodeling 

create lead-based paint hazards, EPA 

issued the RRP rule in 2008 (Ref. 1). In 

issuing the RRP rule, EPA revised the 

TSCA section 402(a) regulatory scheme 

to apply to individuals and firms 

engaged in renovation, repair, and 

painting activities. In this rule, EPA is 

revising the TSCA section 402(c)(3) rule 

to cover renovations in all target 

housing and child-occupied facilities. In 

so doing, EPA has also taken into 

consideration the environmental, 

economic, and social impact of this rule 

as provided in TSCA section 2(c). A 

central objective of this rule is to 

minimize exposure to lead-based paint 

hazards created during renovation, 

repair, and painting activities in all 

target housing and other buildings 

frequented by children under age 6. 

3. Potentially affected small entities. 

Small entities include small businesses, 

small organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. The small 

entities that are potentially directly 

regulated by this rule include: Small 

businesses (including contractors and 

property owners and managers); small 

nonprofits (certain childcare centers and 

private schools); and small governments 

(school districts which operate preschools, kindergartens and certain child 

care centers). 

In determining the number of small 

businesses affected by the rule, the 

Agency applied U.S. Economic Census 

data to the SBA’s definition of small 

business. However, applying the U.S. 

Economic Census data requires either 

under or overestimating the number of 

small businesses affected by the rule. 

For example, for many construction 

establishments, the SBA defines small 

businesses as having revenues of less 

than $14 million. With respect to those 

establishments, the U.S. Economic 

Census data groups all establishments 

with revenues of $10 million or more 

into one revenue bracket. On the one 

hand, using data for the entire industry 

would overestimate the number of small 

businesses affected by the rule and 

would defeat the purpose of estimating 

impacts on small business. It would also 

underestimate the rule’s impact on 

small businesses because the impacts 

would be calculated using the revenues 

of large businesses in addition to small 

businesses. On the other hand, applying 

the closest, albeit lower, revenue bracket 

would underestimate the number of 

small businesses affected by the rule 

while at the same time overestimating 

the impacts. Similar issues arose in 

estimating the fraction of property 

owners and managers that are small 

businesses. EPA has concluded that a 

substantial number of small businesses 

will be affected by the rule. 

Consequently, EPA has chosen to be 

more conservative in estimating the cost 

impacts of the rule by using the closest, 

albeit lower, revenue bracket for which 

U.S. Economic Census data is available. 

For other sectors (nonprofits operating 

childcare centers or private schools), 

EPA assumed that all affected firms are 

small, which may overestimate the 

number of small entities affected by the 

rule. 

The vast majority of entities in the 

industries affected by this rule are 

small. Using EPA’s estimates, the 

revisions to the renovation, repair, and 

painting program will affect 

approximately 289,000 small entities. 

4. Potential economic impacts on 

small entities. EPA evaluated two 

factors in its analysis of the rule’s 

requirements on small entities, the 

number of firms that would experience 

the impact, and the size of the impact. 

Average annual compliance costs as a 

percentage of average annual revenues 

were used to assess the potential 

average impacts of the rule on small 

businesses and small governments. This 

ratio is a good measure of entities’ 

ability to afford the costs attributable to 

a regulatory requirement, because 

comparing compliance costs to revenues 

provides a reasonable indication of the 

magnitude of the regulatory burden 

relative to a commonly available 

measure of economic activity. Where 

regulatory costs represent a small 

fraction of a typical entity’s revenues, 

the financial impacts of the regulation 

on such entities may be considered as 

not significant. For non-profit 

organizations, impacts were measured 

by comparing rule costs to annual 

expenditures. When expenditure data 

were not available, however, revenue 

information was used as a proxy for 

expenditures. It is appropriate to 

calculate the impact ratios using 

annualized costs, because these costs 

are more representative of the 

continuing costs entities face to comply 

with the rule. 

Of the approximately 289,000 small 

entities estimated to incur costs due to 

the rule, an estimated 101,000 small 

residential contractors are assumed to 

seek certification as a result of the 

removal of the opt-out provision; 

therefore, they would incur training, 

certification, work practice, and 

recordkeeping costs. The remaining 

estimated 189,000 small entities 

(working in buildings that were not 

eligible for the opt-out) are only 

expected to incur costs due to the 

additional recordkeeping provisions in 

the rule. 

The average cost to a typical small 

renovation contractor of removing the 

opt-out provision ranges from about 

$1,100 to about $6,400, depending on 

the industry sector. This represents 

0.8% to 1.7% of revenues depending on 

the industry sector. Overall, an 

estimated 101,000 small businesses 

could be affected by the removal of the 

opt-out provision, with average impacts 

of 1.10% of revenues. 

This rule’s new recordkeeping 

requirement has an average cost of $1 to 

$280 for entities not affected by removal 

of the opt-out provision. This results in 

incremental cost impacts ranging from 

0.0001% to 0.08% of revenues. An 

estimated 189,000 small entities could 

be affected solely by the additional 

recordkeeping requirement, including 

165,000 small businesses with average 

impacts of 0.03% of revenues, 17,000 

small non-profits with average impacts 

of 0.0005%, and 6,000 small 

governments with average impacts of 

0.0001%. 

Combining the removal of the opt-out 

provision with the new recordkeeping 

requirement, a total of 289,000 small 

entities could be affected by the rule, 

including 266,000 small businesses with 

average impacts of 0.4%, 17,000 small 

non-profits with average impacts of 

0.0005%, and 6,000 small governments 

with average impacts of 0.0001%. 

To the extent that renovators and 

firms working in housing eligible for the 

opt-out provision will already have 

become trained and certified because 

they also work in regulated facilities 

ineligible for the opt-out provision, or to 

the extent that eligible homeowners 

would decline to opt out, the average 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 24815 

impacts of this action will be lower than 

estimated. 

Some of the small entities subject to 

the rule have employees while others 

are non-employers. The non-employers 

typically perform fewer jobs than firms 

with employees, and thus have lower 

work practice compliance costs. 

However, they also have lower average 

revenues than entities with employees, 

so their impacts (measured as costs 

divided by revenues) can be higher. 

Impact estimates for non-employers 

should be interpreted with caution, as 

some non-employers may have 

significant issues related to 

understatement of income, which would 

tend to exaggerate the average impact 

ratio for this class of small entities. 

There are an estimated 75,000 nonemployer renovation contractors that 

could be affected by the removal of the 

opt-out provision. The average cost to 

such contractors is estimated to be 

$1,193 apiece. This represents 1.3% to 

4.7% of reported revenues, depending 

on the industry sector. The rule’s new 

recordkeeping requirement is estimated 

to affect approximately 96,000 

additional non-employer renovation 

contractors not affected by removal of 

the opt-out provision. The costs to such 

contractors are estimated to be $42 

apiece. This represents 0.05% to 0.17% 

of revenues, depending on the industry 

sector. 

5. Relevant federal rules. The 

requirements in this rule will fit within 

an existing framework of other Federal 

regulations that address lead-based 

paint. Notably, the Pre-Renovation 

Education Rule, 40 CFR 745.85, requires 

renovators to distribute a lead hazard 

information pamphlet to owners and 

occupants before conducting a 

renovation in target housing and childoccupied facilities. This rule’s 

requirement that renovators provide 

owners and occupants with records 

documenting compliance with the 

program’s training and work practice 

requirements complements the existing 

pre-renovation education requirements. 

6. Skills needed for compliance. 

Under the lead renovation, repair, and 

painting program requirements, 

renovators and dust sampling 

technicians working in target housing 

and child-occupied facilities have to 

take a course to learn the proper 

techniques for accomplishing the 

containment, cleaning, cleaning 

verification, and dust sampling tasks 

they will perform during renovations. 

These courses are intended to provide 

them with the information they would 

need to comply with the rule based on 

the skills they already have. Renovators 

then provide on-the-job training in work 

practices to any other renovation 

workers used on a particular renovation. 

Entities are required to apply for 

certification to perform renovations; this 

process does not require any special 

skills other than the ability to complete 

the application. They also need to 

document their training and the work 

practices used during renovations, 

which does not require any special 

skills. 

7. Small business advocacy review 

panel. EPA has been concerned with 

potential small entity impacts since the 

earliest stages of planning for the RRP 

program under section 402(c)(3) of 

TSCA. EPA conducted outreach to small 

entities and, pursuant to section 609 of 

RFA, convened a Small Business 

Advocacy Review Panel (the Panel) in 

1999 to obtain advice and 

recommendations of representatives of 

the regulated small entities. Pursuant to 

the RFA, EPA used the report of the 

Panel convened for the closely related 

RRP rule promulgated in April 2008. 

EPA identified eight key elements of a 

potential renovation and remodeling 

regulation for the Panel’s consideration. 

These elements were: Applicability and 

scope, firm certification, individual 

training and certification, accreditation 

of training courses, work practice 

standards, prohibited practices, exterior 

clearance, and interior clearance. 

Details on the Panel and its 

recommendations are provided in the 

Panel Report (Ref. 9). Information on 

how EPA implemented the Panel’s 

recommendations in the development of 

the RRP program is available in Unit 

VIII.C. of the preamble to the proposed 

RRP rule (Ref. 10) and in Unit V.C. of 

the preamble to the RRP rule (Ref. 1). 

This rule is closely related to the RRP 

rule and the conclusions made in 2008 

regarding the Panel’s recommendations 

are applicable to this final rule. 

Although this final rule expands the 

number of renovation firms that must 

comply with the RRP requirements, it 

does not change the elements identified 

by the Panel. For example, this rule 

does not change the work practice or 

certification requirements of the RRP 

rule. EPA believes that reconvening the 

Panel would be procedurally 

duplicative and is unnecessary given 

that the issues here were within the 

scope of those considered by the Panel. 

8. Alternatives considered. EPA 

considered several significant 

alternatives to this rule that could affect 

the economic impacts of the rule on 

small entities. These alternatives would 

have applied to both small and large 

entities, but given the number of small 

entities in the affected industries, these 

alternatives would primarily affect 

small entities. For the reasons described 

in this unit, EPA believes these 

alternatives are not consistent with the 

objectives of the rule. 

i. Delayed effective date. EPA 

considered an option that would delay 

the removal of the opt-out provision by 

6 months, and another option that 

would delay the date by 12 months. 

These options would make the RRP 

program more complex to implement 

and might lead to confusion by 

renovators and homeowners. These 

options would also lead to increased 

exposures during the delay period, 

including exposures to children under 

the age of 6 and pregnant women. 

Therefore, EPA believes that these 

options are not consistent with the 

stated objectives of the rule. 

ii. Staged approach. EPA considered 

a staged approach that would initially 

remove the opt-out provision in pre1960 housing, and then remove it in 

housing built between 1960 and 1978 a 

year later. This would make the RRP 

program more complex to implement 

and might lead to confusion by 

renovators and homeowners. It would 

also increase exposures during the first 

year of the rule from renovations in 

houses built between 1960 and 1978, 

including exposures to children under 

the age of 6 and pregnant women. EPA 

does not believe that the reduced 

burden of a staged approach outweighs 

the implementation complexity and 

additional exposures that it would 

create. Therefore, EPA believes that this 

option is not consistent with the stated 

objectives of the rule. 

iii. Alternate work practices. EPA also 

considered different options for the 

work practice requirements in housing 

that was previously eligible for the optout provision. Specifically, EPA 

considered options: With the 

containment requirements specified in 

40 CFR 745.85, but without any 

cleaning or cleaning verification work 

practices; with the cleaning and 

cleaning verification requirements 

specified in 40 CFR 745.85, but without 

any containment work practices; with 

the cleaning requirements specified in 

40 CFR 745.85, but without any 

containment or cleaning verification 

work practices; and with the 

containment, cleaning, and cleaning 

verification requirements specified in 40 

CFR 745.85, but without the 

prohibitions or restrictions on paint 

removal practices specified in 40 CFR 

745.85(a)(3) (i.e., open-flame burning or 

torching, the use of machines that 

remove paint through high-speed 

operation without HEPA exhaust 

control, and heat guns operating in 

excess of 1,100 degrees Fahrenheit). 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
24816 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

EPA’s Dust Study (Ref. 11) indicated 

that renovation, repair, and paint 

preparation activities produce large 

quantities of lead dust that create dustlead hazards. The Dust Study showed 

that the largest decreases in dust levels 

were observed in the experiments where 

the rule’s practices of containment, 

specialized cleaning, and cleaning 

verification were all used. The Dust 

Study indicated that if the prohibited 

and restricted practices are avoided, the 

suite of work practices as a whole are 

effective at addressing the lead-paint 

dust that is generated during renovation 

activities. This is discussed in more 

detail in the RRP rule (Ref. 1, pp. 

21696–21697). 

iv. Conclusion. EPA is concerned that 

these alternatives to the rule can create 

confusion among both contractors and 

consumers and could potentially result 

in non-compliance by renovation firms. 

EPA believes that simplifying the 

applicability of the work practices will 

enhance the effectiveness and reliability 

of the rule. 

EPA is concerned that the alternatives 

with a delayed or staged effective date 

would lead to increased exposures 

during the delay period, including 

exposures to children under the age of 

6 and pregnant women. 

Based on the data available to EPA 

(e.g., the Dust Study), the Agency 

cannot now conclude that the 

alternatives to the rule with alternate 

work practices are safe, reliable or 

effective because none of these would 

sufficiently minimize exposure to leadbased paint hazards. In sum, when the 

RRP work practices are not used, 

residents and visitors are exposed to the 

lead hazards created by the renovation, 

and therefore these approaches would 

not protect older children, women of 

childbearing age, or other adults 

currently residing in the home and can 

result in exposure to children under the 

age of 6 and pregnant women to leadbased paint hazards. 

9. Summary of significant issues 

raised by public comments. There were 

no public comments specifically on the 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. 

However, there were public comments 

that addressed the Agency’s compliance 

with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, or 

which addressed issues that indirectly 

affect the Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis. The Agency’s assessment of 

these issues is summarized in the FRFA. 

EPA did not make any changes to the 

proposed rule as a result of these 

comments. 

10. Small entity compliance guide. As 

required by section 212 of Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act (SBREFA), EPA issued a 

Small Entity Compliance Guide (the 

Guide) in December 2008 to help small 

entities comply with the RRP rule. The 

Guide is available at: http:// 

www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/ 

sbcomplianceguide.pdf or from the 

National Lead Information Center by 

calling 1–800–424–LEAD [5323]. EPA 

will revise the Guide, as necessary, to 

reflect this rulemaking activity. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their regulatory actions on State, local, 

and Tribal governments and the private 

sector. Under section 202 of UMRA, 

EPA generally must prepare a written 

statement, including a cost-benefit 

analysis, for proposed and final rules 

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may result 

in expenditures to State, local, and 

Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or 

to the private sector, of $100 million or 

more in any 1 year. Before promulgating 

an EPA rule for which a written 

statement is needed, section 205 of 

UMRA generally requires EPA to 

identify and consider a reasonable 

number of regulatory alternatives and 

adopt the least costly, most costeffective or least burdensome alternative 

that achieves the objectives of the rule. 

The provisions of section 205 do not 

apply when they are inconsistent with 

applicable law. Moreover, section 205 

allows EPA to adopt an alternative other 

than the least costly, most cost-effective 

or least burdensome alternative if the 

Administrator publishes with the final 

rule an explanation why that alternative 

was not adopted. Before EPA establishes 

any regulatory requirements that may 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, including Tribal 

governments, it must have developed 

under section 203 of UMRA a small 

government agency plan. The plan must 

provide for notifying potentially 

affected small governments, enabling 

officials of affected small governments 

to have meaningful and timely input in 

the development of EPA proposed rules 

with significant Federal 

intergovernmental mandates, and 

informing, educating, and advising 

small governments on compliance with 

the regulatory requirements. 

Under UMRA Title II, EPA has 

determined that this rule contains a 

Federal mandate that may result in 

expenditures that exceed the inflationadjusted UMRA threshold of $100 

million by the private sector in any 1 

year, but it will not result in such 

expenditures by State, local, and Tribal 

governments in the aggregate. 

Accordingly, EPA has prepared a 

written statement under section 202 of 

UMRA which has been placed in the 

docket for this rule (Ref. 12) and is 

summarized here. 

1. Authorizing legislation. This rule is 

issued under the authority of TSCA 

sections 402(c)(3), 404, 406, and 407 (15 

U.S.C. 2682(c)(3), 2684, 2686, and 

2687). 

2. Cost-benefit analysis. EPA has 

prepared an analysis of the costs and 

benefits associated with this rule, a copy 

of which is available in the docket for 

this rule (Ref. 5). The Economic 

Analysis presents the costs of this rule 

as well as various regulatory options 

and is summarized in Unit IV.A. EPA 

has estimated the total costs of this rule 

at approximately $500 million in the 

first year and $300 million per year 

thereafter. 

The benefits of the rule result from 

the prevention of adverse health effects 

attributable to lead exposure from 

renovations in pre-1978 buildings. 

These health effects include impaired 

cognitive function in children and 

several illnesses in children and adults, 

such as increased adverse 

cardiovascular outcomes (including 

increased blood pressure, increased 

incidence of hypertension, 

cardiovascular morbidity, and mortality) 

and decreased kidney function. 

3. State, local, and Tribal government 

input. EPA has sought input from State, 

local, and Tribal government 

representatives throughout the 

development of the renovation, repair, 

and painting program. EPA’s experience 

in administering the existing lead-based 

paint activities program under TSCA 

section 402(a) suggests that these 

governments will play a critical role in 

the successful implementation of a 

national program to reduce exposures to 

lead-based paint hazards associated 

with renovation, repair, and painting 

activities. Consequently, as discussed in 

Unit III.C.2. of the preamble to the 

proposed RRP rule (Ref. 10), the Agency 

has met with State, local, and Tribal 

government officials on numerous 

occasions to discuss renovation issues. 

4. Least burdensome option. EPA has 

considered a wide variety of options for 

addressing the risks presented by 

renovation activities where lead-based 

paint is present. As part of the 

development of the renovation, repair, 

and painting program, EPA considered 

different options for the scope of the 

rule, various combinations of training 

and certification requirements for 

individuals who perform renovations, 

various combinations of work practice 

requirements, and various methods for 

ensuring that no lead-based paint 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 24817 

hazards are left behind by persons 

performing renovations. The Economic 

Analysis for this rule analyzed several 

additional options for the phasing, 

effective date, and work practices 

required for the additional owneroccupied housing affected by the 

removal of the opt-out provision. As 

described in Unit IV.C., EPA has 

concluded that the options for delaying 

or phasing the effective date would 

make the RRP program more complex to 

implement, might lead to confusion by 

renovators and homeowners, and would 

lead to increased exposures. EPA 

believes that the selected approach is 

the least burdensome option available 

that achieves a central objective of this 

rule, which is to minimize exposure to 

lead-based paint hazards created during 

renovation, repair, and painting 

activities in all target housing and other 

buildings frequented by children under 

age 6. 

This rule does not contain a 

significant Federal intergovernmental 

mandate as described by section 203 of 

UMRA. Based on the definition of 

‘‘small government jurisdiction’’ in RFA 

section 601, no State governments can 

be considered small. Small Territorial or 

Tribal governments may apply for 

authorization to administer and enforce 

this program, which would entail costs, 

but these small jurisdictions are under 

no obligation to do so. 

EPA has determined that this rule 

contains no regulatory requirements that 

might significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments. Small governments 

operate public housing, and schools that 

are child-occupied facilities. If these 

governments perform renovations in 

these facilities, they may incur very 

small additional costs to provide 

residents, parents or guardians with 

copies of the records documenting 

compliance with the training and work 

practice requirements. EPA generally 

measures a significant impact under 

UMRA as being expenditures, in the 

aggregate, of more than 1% of small 

government revenues in any 1 year. As 

explained in Unit IV.C.4., the rule is 

expected to result in small government 

impacts well under 1% of revenues. So 

EPA has determined that the rule does 

not significantly affect small 

governments. Nor does the rule 

uniquely affect small governments, as 

the rule is not targeted at small 

governments, does not primarily affect 

small governments, and does not 

impose a different burden on small 

governments than on other entities that 

operate child-occupied facilities. 

E. Executive Order 13132 

Pursuant to Executive Order 13132, 

entitled ‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999), EPA has determined 

that this rule does not have ‘‘federalism 

implications,’’ because it will not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. Thus, Executive 

Order 13132 does not apply to this rule. 

States are able to apply for, and receive 

authorization to administer the lead 

renovation, repair, and painting 

program requirements, but are under no 

obligation to do so. In the absence of a 

State authorization, EPA will administer 

the requirements. Nevertheless, in the 

spirit of the objectives of this Executive 

Order, and consistent with EPA policy 

to promote communications between 

the Agency and State and local 

governments, EPA consulted with 

representatives of State and local 

governments in developing the 

renovation, repair, and painting 

program. These consultations were 

described in the preamble to the 

proposed RRP rule (Ref. 10). 

F. Executive Order 13175 

As required by Executive Order 

13175, entitled ‘‘Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments’’ (59 FR 22951, November 

6, 2000), EPA has determined that this 

rule does not have Tribal implications 

because it will not have substantial 

direct effects on Tribal governments, on 

the relationship between the Federal 

government and the Indian Tribes, or on 

the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

government and Indian Tribes, as 

specified in the Order. Tribes are able to 

apply for and receive authorization to 

administer the lead renovation, repair, 

and painting program on Tribal lands, 

but Tribes are under no obligation to do 

so. In the absence of a Tribal 

authorization, EPA will administer 

these requirements. While Tribes may 

operate public housing or childoccupied facilities covered by the rule 

such as kindergartens, prekindergartens, and daycare facilities, 

EPA has determined that this rule 

would not have substantial direct effects 

on the Tribal governments that operate 

these facilities. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this rule. Although Executive 

Order 13175 does not apply, EPA 

consulted with Tribal officials and 

others by discussing potential 

renovation regulatory options for the 

renovation, repair, and painting 

program at several national lead 

program meetings hosted by EPA and 

other interested Federal agencies. 

G. Executive Order 13045 

Executive Order 13045, entitled 

‘‘Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) 

applies to this rule because it is an 

‘‘economically significant regulatory 

action’’ as defined by Executive Order 

12866, and because the environmental 

health or safety risk addressed by this 

action may have a disproportionate 

effect on children. 

A central purpose of this rule is to 

minimize exposure to lead-based paint 

hazards created during renovation, 

repair, and painting activities in all 

housing and other buildings frequented 

by children under age 6. In the absence 

of this regulation, adequate work 

practices are not likely to be employed 

during renovation, repair, and painting 

activities in housing eligible for the optout provision. 

Removing the opt-out provision will 

protect children under the age of 6 who 

visit a friend, relative, or caregiver’s 

house where a renovation would have 

been performed under the opt-out 

provision; children who move into such 

housing when their family purchases it 

after such a renovation would have been 

performed; and children who live in a 

property adjacent to owner-occupied 

housing where renovation would have 

been performed under the opt-out 

provision. Removing the opt-out 

provision will also protect children age 

6 and older who live in houses that 

would have been renovated under the 

opt-out provision; who move into such 

housing; and who live in adjacent 

properties. 

H. Executive Order 13211 

This rule is not a ‘‘significant energy 

action’’ as defined in Executive Order 

13211, entitled ‘‘Actions concerning 

Regulations that Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is 

not likely to have any adverse effect on 

the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104– 

113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), directs 

EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
24818 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to 

provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the Agency decides 

not to use available and applicable 

voluntary consensus standards. 

This rulemaking does not involve 

technical standards. Therefore, EPA is 

not considering the use of any voluntary 

consensus standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898 

Pursuant to Executive Order 12898, 

entitled ‘‘Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income 

Populations’’ (59 FR 7629, February 16, 

1994), EPA has assessed the potential 

impact of this rule on minority and lowincome populations. The results of this 

assessment are presented in the 

Economic Analysis, which is available 

in the public docket for this rulemaking 

(Ref. 5). As a result of this assessment, 

the Agency has determined that this 

rule will not have disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority or 

low-income populations because it 

increases the level of environmental 

protection for all affected populations 

without having any disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on any 

population, including any minority or 

low-income population. 

V. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report to each House of 

the Congress and the Comptroller 

General of the United States. EPA will 

submit a report containing this rule and 

other required information to the U.S. 

Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. This rule is a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 745 

Environmental protection, Lead, 

Lead-based paint, Renovation, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: April 22, 2010. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

■ Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is 

amended as follows: 

PART 745—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 745 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2605, 2607, 2681– 

2692 and 42 U.S.C. 4852d. 

■ 2. In § 745.81, revise paragraph (a)(4) 

to read as follows: 

§ 745.81 Effective dates. 

(a) * * * 

(4) Work practices. (i) On or after 

April 22, 2010 and before July 6, 2010 

all renovations must be performed in 

accordance with the work practice 

standards in § 745.85 and the 

associated recordkeeping requirements 

in § 745.86 (b)(6) in target housing or 

child-occupied facilities, unless the 

renovation qualifies for one of the 

exceptions identified in § 745.82(a). 

This does not apply to renovations in 

target housing for which the firm 

performing the renovation has obtained 

a statement signed by the owner that the 

renovation will occur in the owner’s 

residence, no child under age 6 resides 

there, the housing is not a childoccupied facility, and the owner 

acknowledges that the work practices to 

be used during the renovation will not 

necessarily include all of the lead-safe 

work practices contained in EPA’s 

renovation, repair, and painting rule. 

For the purposes of this section, a child 

resides in the primary residence of his 

or her custodial parents, legal guardians, 

and foster parents. A child also resides 

in the primary residence of an informal 

caretaker if the child lives and sleeps 

most of the time at the caretaker’s 

residence. 

(ii) On or after July 6, 2010, all 

renovations must be performed in 

accordance with the work practice 

standards in § 745.85 and the 

associated recordkeeping requirements 

in § 745.86(b)(1) and (b)(6) in target 

housing or child-occupied facilities, 

unless the renovation qualifies for the 

exception identified in § 745.82(a). 

* * * * * 

§ 745.82 [Amended] 

■ 3. In § 745.82, remove paragraph (c). 

■ 4. In § 745.84, revise paragraph (b)(2), 

the introductory text of paragraph (c)(2), 

and paragraph (c)(2)(ii) to read as 

follows: 

§ 745.84 Information distribution 

requirements. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) Comply with one of the following. 

(i) Notify in writing, or ensure written 

notification of, each affected unit and 

make the pamphlet available upon 

request prior to the start of renovation. 

Such notification shall be accomplished 

by distributing written notice to each 

affected unit. The notice shall describe 

the general nature and locations of the 

planned renovation activities; the 

expected starting and ending dates; and 

a statement of how the occupant can 

obtain the pamphlet and a copy of the 

records required by § 745.86(c) and (d), 

at no cost to the occupants, or 

(ii) While the renovation is ongoing, 

post informational signs describing the 

general nature and locations of the 

renovation and the anticipated 

completion date. These signs must be 

posted in areas where they are likely to 

be seen by the occupants of all of the 

affected units. The signs must be 

accompanied by a posted copy of the 

pamphlet or information on how 

interested occupants can review a copy 

of the pamphlet or obtain a copy from 

the renovation firm at no cost to 

occupants. The signs must also include 

information on how interested 

occupants can review a copy of the 

records required by § 745.86(c) and (d) 

or obtain a copy from the renovation 

firm at no cost to the occupants. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(2) Provide the parents and guardians 

of children using the child-occupied 

facility with the pamphlet, information 

describing the general nature and 

locations of the renovation and the 

anticipated completion date, and 

information on how interested parents 

or guardians of children frequenting the 

child-occupied facility can review a 

copy of the records required by 

§ 745.86(c) and (d) or obtain a copy from 

the renovation firm at no cost to the 

occupants by complying with one of the 

following: 

* * * * * 

(ii) While the renovation is ongoing, 

post informational signs describing the 

general nature and locations of the 

renovation and the anticipated 

completion date. These signs must be 

posted in areas where they can be seen 

by the parents or guardians of the 

children frequenting the child-occupied 

facility. The signs must be accompanied 

by a posted copy of the pamphlet or 

information on how interested parents 

or guardians of children frequenting the 

child-occupied facility can review a 

copy of the pamphlet or obtain a copy 

from the renovation firm at no cost to 

the parents or guardians. The signs must 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 24819 

also include information on how 

interested parents or guardians of 

children frequenting the child-occupied 

facility can review a copy of the records 

required by § 745.86(c) and (d) or 

obtain a copy from the renovation firm 

at no cost to the parents or guardians. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. In § 745.86, remove paragraph (b)(6) 

and redesignate paragraph (b)(7) as 

paragraph (b)(6) and revise paragraphs 

(b)(1), (c), and (d) to read as follows: 

§ 745.86 Recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) Records or reports certifying that 

a determination had been made that 

lead-based paint was not present on the 

components affected by the renovation, 

as described in § 745.82(a). These 

records or reports include: 

(i) Reports prepared by a certified 

inspector or certified risk assessor 

(certified pursuant to either Federal 

regulations at § 745.226 or an EPAauthorized State or Tribal certification 

program). 

(ii) Records prepared by a certified 

renovator after using EPA-recognized 

test kits, including an identification of 

the manufacturer and model of any test 

kits used, a description of the 

components that were tested including 

their locations, and the result of each 

test kit used. 

* * * * * 

(c)(1) When the final invoice for the 

renovation is delivered or within 30 

days of the completion of the 

renovation, whichever is earlier, the 

renovation firm must provide 

information pertaining to compliance 

with this subpart to the following 

persons: 

(i) The owner of the building; and, if 

different, 

(ii) An adult occupant of the 

residential dwelling, if the renovation 

took place within a residential dwelling, 

or an adult representative of the childoccupied facility, if the renovation took 

place within a child-occupied facility. 

(2) When performing renovations in 

common areas of multi-unit target 

housing, renovation firms must post the 

information required by this subpart or 

instructions on how interested 

occupants can obtain a copy of this 

information. This information must be 

posted in areas where it is likely to be 

seen by the occupants of all of the 

affected units. 

(3) The information required to be 

provided by paragraph (c) of this section 

may be provided by completing the 

sample form titled ‘‘Sample Renovation 

Recordkeeping Checklist’’ or a similar 

form containing the test kit information 

required by § 745.86(b)(1)(ii) and the 

training and work practice compliance 

information required by § 745.86(b)(6). 

(d) If dust clearance sampling is 

performed in lieu of cleaning 

verification as permitted by § 745.85(c), 

the renovation firm must provide, when 

the final invoice for the renovation is 

delivered or within 30 days of the 

completion of the renovation, 

whichever is earlier, a copy of the dust 

sampling report to: 

(1) The owner of the building; and, if 

different, 

(2) An adult occupant of the 

residential dwelling, if the renovation 

took place within a residential dwelling, 

or an adult representative of the childoccupied facility, if the renovation took 

place within a child-occupied facility. 

(3) When performing renovations in 

common areas of multi-unit target 

housing, renovation firms must post 

these dust sampling reports or 

information on how interested 

occupants of the housing being 

renovated can obtain a copy of the 

report. This information must be posted 

in areas where they are likely to be seen 

by the occupants of all of the affected 

units. 

■ 6. In § 745.90, revise paragraphs (a)(4) 

and (b)(8) to read as follows: 

§ 745.90 Renovator certification and dust 

sampling technician certification. 

(a) * * * 

(4) To maintain renovator certification 

or dust sampling technician 

certification, an individual must 

complete a renovator or dust sampling 

technician refresher course accredited 

by EPA under § 745.225 or by a State or 

Tribal program that is authorized under 

subpart Q of this part within 5 years of 

the date the individual completed the 

initial course described in paragraph 

(a)(1) of this section. If the individual 

does not complete a refresher course 

within this time, the individual must retake the initial course to become 

certified again. Individuals who 

complete a renovator course accredited 

by EPA before April 22, 2010, must 

complete an EPA-accredited renovator 

refresher course before July 1, 2015, to 

maintain renovator certification. 

(b) * * * 

(8) Must prepare the records required 

by § 745.86(b)(1) and (b)(6). 

* * * * * 

■ 7. In § 745.225, revise paragraph 

(c)(2)(ii) to read as follows: 

§ 745.225 Accreditation of training 

programs: Target housing and childoccupied facilities. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(ii) Successfully completed at least 16 

hours of any EPA-accredited or EPAauthorized State or Tribal-accredited 

lead-specific training for instructors of 

lead-based paint activities courses or 8 

hours of any EPA-accredited or EPAauthorized State or Tribal-accredited 

lead-specific training for instructors of 

renovator or dust sampling technician 

courses; and 

* * * * * 

■ 8. In § 745.326, add paragraph (f) to 

read as follows: 

§ 745.326 Renovation: State and Tribal 

program requirements. 

* * * * * 

(f) Revisions to renovation program 

requirements. When EPA publishes in 

the Federal Register revisions to the 

renovation program requirements 

contained in subparts E and L of this 

part: 

(1) A State or Tribe with a renovation 

program approved before the effective 

date of the revisions to the renovation 

program requirements in subparts E and 

L of this part must demonstrate that it 

meets the requirements of this section 

no later than the first report that it 

submits pursuant to § 745.324(h) but no 

later than 2 years after the effective date 

of the revisions. 

(2) A State or Tribe with an 

application for approval of a renovation 

program submitted but not approved 

before the effective date of the revisions 

to the renovation program requirements 

in subparts E and L of this part must 

demonstrate that it meets the 

requirements of this section either by 

amending its application or in the first 

report that it submits pursuant to 

§ 745.324(h) of this part but no later 

than 2 years after the effective date of 

the revisions. 

(3) A State or Tribe submitting its 

application for approval of a renovation 

program on or after the effective date of 

the revisions must demonstrate in its 

application that it meets the 

requirements of the new renovation 

program requirements in subparts E and 

L of this part. 

[FR Doc. 2010–10100 Filed 5–5–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES